These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

[Covert Ops] Larger Stealth Bomber

Author
Dhaq
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-07-06 23:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Dhaq
We have stealth bombers that allow a smaller group of players to at least throw some damage at BC and BS fleets. Why not create a bomber that targets larger fleets. A BS or BC sized stealth bomber whose targets would be capitals.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-07-06 23:05:55 UTC
Because billion ISK glass cannons which are perfectly capable of being blapped by dreads are going to be a great idea.
Dhaq
Doomheim
#3 - 2014-07-06 23:15:32 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Because billion ISK glass cannons which are perfectly capable of being blapped by dreads are going to be a great idea.


That's sort of the trade off though isn't it? A billion is all that much any more and I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of people that would fleet these up similar to stealth bombers now.

And it would have to be the Black Ops BS specifically. I am just sort of using that as a reference point.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#4 - 2014-07-07 01:49:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
A far more likely implementation would be destroyer-sized vessels that fire Citadel Torpedoes with similar bonuses to the current line of stealth bombers.

Take, for example, the following hull, based on the Corax model:

ALBATROSS

Caldari Destroyer Bonus:
10% bonus to Citadel Torpedo explosion velocity
5% bonus missile Kinetic damage

Heavy Bomber Bonus:
10% bonus to Citadel Torpedo Kinetic rate of fire
10% bonus to Sensor Resolution

Role Bonus:
100% reduction in Citadel Torpedo Launcher powergrid requirement
85% reduction in Citadel Torpedo Launcher CPU requirement
50% reduction in Cloaking Devices CPU requirement
- No targeting delay after Cloaking Device deactivation
- Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device and Covert Cynosural Field Generator
- Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 15 seconds.

Slot layout: 8H, 3M, 2L; 0 turrets, 7 launchers
Fittings: 24 PWG, 300 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 650 / 450 / 450
Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 500 / 250ms / 2.5
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 110 / 5
Sensor strength: 24
Signature radius: 65

Does just under 4500 raw DPS (~1/3rd of a sieged Moros), but WAY less against anything smaller than a capital. For example, against a stationary 400m sig Battleship, it'd only do ~800 DPS. Against a 400m sig BS moving at 100m/s, it'd be doing about 630 DPS (both of those are at all V's). It also has a catastrophically low sensor resolution to ensure that its dominant target is capitals and maybe battleships with appropriate fitting considerations.

Destroyers are also small enough that dreads and titans don't have a hope in hell of hitting them, but carriers actually have some defense against them in their drones. Even battleships can have some trouble if they are AB-fit. I modeled most of the stats on the differences between the Manticore and Kestral. The tank is thus ~35% lower than the Corax's, and it loses a midslot in order to gain the extra high-slot for the cloak.

Of note is that I decided to completely remove the PG cost of the launchers, because the appropriate reduction would have been around 99.996%. Instead, I decreased the base PG such that, at all V's, it has 30 PG, which is enough for an AB or MWD, but not enough for more than small or maybe medium-sized shield extenders. On the CPU side, it's designed such that it can fit all 7 launchers, a covert cloak, and 2 BCSes, but not much else, if at 0 fitting skills with T1 launchers. With maximum fitting skills and meta launchers (which take 10% less CPU than the T1 versions), it'll have some room to play with missile rigs, shield extenders, and more CPU-intensive EWAR like damps or points.
James Nikolas Tesla
Tesla Holdings
#5 - 2014-07-07 01:50:50 UTC
Meh, try again, OP.

CODE is just a bunch of pirates; smart, organized pirates. It doesn't help to rage at them because that is exactly what they want. Dust yourself off and get back on your feet, you don't even have to talk to them.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2014-07-07 13:48:56 UTC
Daenika wrote:
A far more likely implementation would be destroyer-sized vessels that fire Citadel Torpedoes with similar bonuses to the current line of stealth bombers.

Take, for example, the following hull, based on the Corax model:

ALBATROSS

Caldari Destroyer Bonus:
10% bonus to Citadel Torpedo explosion velocity
5% bonus missile Kinetic damage

Heavy Bomber Bonus:
10% bonus to Citadel Torpedo Kinetic rate of fire
10% bonus to Sensor Resolution

Role Bonus:
100% reduction in Citadel Torpedo Launcher powergrid requirement
85% reduction in Citadel Torpedo Launcher CPU requirement
50% reduction in Cloaking Devices CPU requirement
- No targeting delay after Cloaking Device deactivation
- Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device and Covert Cynosural Field Generator
- Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 15 seconds.

Slot layout: 8H, 3M, 2L; 0 turrets, 7 launchers
Fittings: 24 PWG, 300 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 650 / 450 / 450
Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 500 / 250ms / 2.5
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 110 / 5
Sensor strength: 24
Signature radius: 65

Does just under 4500 raw DPS (~1/3rd of a sieged Moros), but WAY less against anything smaller than a capital. For example, against a stationary 400m sig Battleship, it'd only do ~800 DPS. Against a 400m sig BS moving at 100m/s, it'd be doing about 630 DPS (both of those are at all V's). It also has a catastrophically low sensor resolution to ensure that its dominant target is capitals and maybe battleships with appropriate fitting considerations.

Destroyers are also small enough that dreads and titans don't have a hope in hell of hitting them, but carriers actually have some defense against them in their drones. Even battleships can have some trouble if they are AB-fit. I modeled most of the stats on the differences between the Manticore and Kestral. The tank is thus ~35% lower than the Corax's, and it loses a midslot in order to gain the extra high-slot for the cloak.

Of note is that I decided to completely remove the PG cost of the launchers, because the appropriate reduction would have been around 99.996%. Instead, I decreased the base PG such that, at all V's, it has 30 PG, which is enough for an AB or MWD, but not enough for more than small or maybe medium-sized shield extenders. On the CPU side, it's designed such that it can fit all 7 launchers, a covert cloak, and 2 BCSes, but not much else, if at 0 fitting skills with T1 launchers. With maximum fitting skills and meta launchers (which take 10% less CPU than the T1 versions), it'll have some room to play with missile rigs, shield extenders, and more CPU-intensive EWAR like damps or points.



But surely that's juts a highsec POS basher...
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#7 - 2014-07-08 06:51:14 UTC
Quote:
But surely that's juts a highsec POS basher...


Oh, it'll do that remarkably well, too, but I don't see much issue with that. In Null, you can break out the dreads to help crack the towers quicker, but you don't have that option in HS.

This will also make breaking out those dreads to crack towers in NS (and LS) less safe, since a fleet of heavy bombers is only a covert cyno away from your fleet of dreads. I'm not sure the traditional fit for dreads out in NS, but using our escalation Moros as a template, a wing of 10 heavy bombers could crack that Moros (with boosts and repper running) in around 32 seconds (a more tanky version could last around a minute). A wing of 10 would provide around the same DPS against a capital as around 3 sieged dreads, so that would definitely ruffle up the capital landscape considerably.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2014-07-08 07:31:22 UTC
Daenika wrote:
Quote:
But surely that's juts a highsec POS basher...


Oh, it'll do that remarkably well, too, but I don't see much issue with that. In Null, you can break out the dreads to help crack the towers quicker, but you don't have that option in HS.

This will also make breaking out those dreads to crack towers in NS (and LS) less safe, since a fleet of heavy bombers is only a covert cyno away from your fleet of dreads. I'm not sure the traditional fit for dreads out in NS, but using our escalation Moros as a template, a wing of 10 heavy bombers could crack that Moros (with boosts and repper running) in around 32 seconds (a more tanky version could last around a minute). A wing of 10 would provide around the same DPS against a capital as around 3 sieged dreads, so that would definitely ruffle up the capital landscape considerably.



Or, the groups who had previously used dreads to crack POS will not just use these things and do it cheaper, with no siege timers to worry about, leading to LESS cap losses.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#9 - 2014-07-08 12:32:32 UTC
Daenika wrote:
A far more likely implementation would be destroyer-sized vessels that fire Citadel Torpedoes with similar bonuses to the current line of stealth bombers.

Take, for example, the following hull, based on the Corax model:

ALBATROSS

4.5k dps, decently applied in a proper fleet against battleships using some painting and webbing.


OP said *Bombers*, which means that you get nothing on this superspecialized vessel but a potent nuke. The idea of a ship that has capital sized dps without being a titan or using siege is ridiculous.
Dhaq
Doomheim
#10 - 2014-07-08 12:40:55 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Daenika wrote:
A far more likely implementation would be destroyer-sized vessels that fire Citadel Torpedoes with similar bonuses to the current line of stealth bombers.

Take, for example, the following hull, based on the Corax model:

ALBATROSS

4.5k dps, decently applied in a proper fleet against battleships using some painting and webbing.


OP said *Bombers*, which means that you get nothing on this superspecialized vessel but a potent nuke. The idea of a ship that has capital sized dps without being a titan or using siege is ridiculous.


Yes, I was meaning a larger version of the bomber. Fly them the same way bombers are now, but you are simply looking at larger targets.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-07-08 12:43:33 UTC
Black Ops is NOT Covert Ops.

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."

Dhaq
Doomheim
#12 - 2014-07-08 12:55:26 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Black Ops is NOT Covert Ops.


You're correct, it was a poor choice of wording for the title. I have updated it.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#13 - 2014-07-08 15:09:06 UTC
Quote:
OP said *Bombers*, which means that you get nothing on this superspecialized vessel but a potent nuke. The idea of a ship that has capital sized dps without being a titan or using siege is ridiculous.


How's that much different than a ship with battleship-sized DPS that isn't a battleship? That's what current bombers are. They are countered by having something like 1/100th the tank of a battleship, and the inability to do much of anything against ships substantially smaller than their intended target class.

I admit that the POS thing could be an issue. The easiest way, in my mind, to fix that is to keep the cargo bay on these suckers pretty limited. A flight of 10 would take ~4 volleys to crack a sieged dread (since Citadel torp launchers have a loooooong refire rate even with the ROF bonus I baked in). Citadel torps are also large as hell, at 0.3 m3 each. With 7 launchers and 17 torps per launcher (meta), that means a full refill on the launchers takes up 35.7 m3 of space. Give the superbomber only 80 m3 of space, and it'll put out a maximum of about 1.6 million damage per cargohold (1 refill in the tubes, two more in the bay, ~32k damage per volley at full application). A 9-hardener tower has ~116m EHP, so 10 of these would need 9 additional refills each in order to handle it. A Blockade Runner could handle the deal (and could even covert bridge in with them), but it's still additional logistics. Besides, regular bombers are already used to crack towers, so I don't see the meta changing much, especially since you'd need something like 20 minutes for a wing of these to take a large tower from top to dead (assuming it isn't stronted, less to reinforce it, obviously).

These will also see use in fleet fights as precision "nukes", to borrow your term. Think of a wing of these decloaking and blapping a capital off field, then hopefully getting the hell out before anyone notices and bubbles them. Would give people other than capital pilots and DIC/HIC pilots something to do in those fights, as the subcaps would then be anti-heavy-bomber support, since these things would have, what, ~2500 EHP baseline? That's a single volley from even a cruiser.

These would operate off the same weakness tradeoff as current bombers. Anemic tank, poor maneuverability, and inability to effectively deal with targets significantly smaller than their intended target group, in exchange for significantly higher DPS for their class than normal.

Could also bump them up to cruisers, but there are already enough T2 cruiser types, hence why I went for destroyers. Battlecruisers and battleships are too large, as capitals can hit them without issue, and they have much more substantial tanks.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-07-08 15:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I am rather interested in a covert ops battleship that can bomb capitals and supercapitals. It could take a lot to get anywhere but maybe if they had a very large radius bomb (say, 50km) that did damage based on target sig radius, a field of supercapitals could be in danger to attack by a swarm of these, which would add a little bit of extra thought before the big blocs drop a ton of em into one battle. Wouldn't be too shabby if they also caused significant pain to regular capital ships, and even toasted a smidge off the shields of the larger subcaps. Also would be great if these things could fire citadel torpedoes and had pretty good DPS against large, stationary targets. They should probably get a penalty to explosion radius just so they have reduced damage against basic capitals.

Perhaps if battleship covert ops were added, they should come with some other changes to covert ops and/or a new module/ship that can allow a properly prepared covert ops fleet to be able to handle battleships without it causing too many problems.

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."

Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#15 - 2014-07-08 15:16:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Dhaq wrote:

Yes, I was meaning a larger version of the bomber. Fly them the same way bombers are now, but you are simply looking at larger targets.


Rant, rant rant, I was wrong and not to stubborn to admit it.

Cheers
Dhaq
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-07-08 15:16:55 UTC
Daenika wrote:

Could also bump them up to cruisers, but there are already enough T2 cruiser types, hence why I went for destroyers. Battlecruisers and battleships are too large, as capitals can hit them without issue, and they have much more substantial tanks.


Cruiser null might be realistic. But the intended role here is a larger stealth bomber. They shouldn't be on the field long enough to get hit, and if they are they should die pretty easy.
Dhaq
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-07-08 15:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dhaq
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Dhaq wrote:

Yes, I was meaning a larger version of the bomber. Fly them the same way bombers are now, but you are simply looking at larger targets.


This suggestion is absolute bonkus. And I don't really have to go into detail, anything that can doe more AOE then a SB can atm. with Cov Ops Cloak and with better tank is ridiculously overpowered. Just because you think, 'oh, it would be nice if this ship would be used against capitals [RollONLYRoll]", doesn't mean everyone else but you woudl exploit this to insta blap whole fleets under capital size. GL.

If Malcanis' Law is in palce in regards to new and old players, this is the same version on size. Everything that benefits destroying bigger targets with bonused (minor/lesser size) waepons will be able to break weaker targets even more so.

The limitations such a ship/mod would have to submit to would almost refute the implementation, the first place, itself.


So you can insta-blap frigate/cruiser gangs with a stealth bomber? Possible, but its very inefficient and you run a high risk of getting your *** handed to you.

The same would apply here. The weapon system and bomb type would need to be such that made it not feasible to target small ships.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#18 - 2014-07-08 15:47:48 UTC
AOE doesn't care about size.
Damen Apol
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-07-08 16:03:11 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
AOE doesn't care about size.


Have you ever used a bomb before? or had one used on you?

pro-tip a frigate with MWD on is going to die to a bomb, a frigate with an AB on will easily survive it.

Why? Because of sig radius size.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#20 - 2014-07-08 16:04:09 UTC
Dhaq wrote:
We have stealth bombers that allow a smaller group of players to at least throw some damage at BC and BS fleets. Why not create a bomber that targets larger fleets. A BS or BC sized stealth bomber whose targets would be capitals.


The last thing Eve needs is more covops black ops bridgeable stealth ships.

Yaay!!!!

123Next page