These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#521 - 2014-10-17 22:28:01 UTC
as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate

but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade

That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#522 - 2014-10-17 22:34:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I'm from a time when bombers were paper thin, bombs were utterly useless and they launched cruise missiles. They are far from useless after these changes. The only problem here is the same problem that every ship has after it gets changed, people cant think for themselves. In less than a month people will swap to using new bomber fits and tactics that others who can and do adapt to change will come up with and all will be well again.


Sorry but me too.

Back in the day the Manticore was the only stealth bomber worth flying. The rest of them were not even considered. And none of them could fit a 100 million (that is no joke!) covert ops cloak.

I'll let you in on a secret, the only reason why the Manticore was the best stealth bomber in 2006 was that the Manticore had cruise missiles without missile launcher tracking nonsense.

Another big revelation of the past and the end of daze coming from the missiles without tracking nonsense from the past.

(Guess what I was telling the truth all along, even without exile and smoothsayer and a drop of mindflood in my quafe..)

The other bombers used turrets - battleship turrets like the Talos, Nage, tornado and Oracle do.

They did get a speed buff from using the improved tech II cloak and were fit with....

surprise!!!! Sensor dampeners!!

The covert ops cloak came years later and even in 2006 somehow people were able to not decloak themselves. It only seems impossible to do again after two years Roll

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#523 - 2014-10-17 22:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsine Mayhem
Mike Azariah wrote:
as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate

but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade

That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?

m


Remove bombers from the game, leave cloaking alone.

Make tear bears ships immune to damage so we don't have to hear the crying of little girls anymore.

Because that is all this is about.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#524 - 2014-10-18 00:45:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Byson1
is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics?
Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people?
I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#525 - 2014-10-18 00:48:13 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate

but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade

That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?

m

i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges.



but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Gantz Vendetta
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#526 - 2014-10-18 00:48:16 UTC
Im sure its been said before but TLDR.

I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.

Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.

Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.

I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.
Hal Lubbert
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#527 - 2014-10-18 00:56:47 UTC
Gantz Vendetta wrote:
Im sure its been said before but TLDR.

I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.

Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.

Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.

I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.



I agree with what he said !!!
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#528 - 2014-10-18 01:22:06 UTC
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#529 - 2014-10-18 01:33:07 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png

This.


Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#530 - 2014-10-18 01:51:23 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics?
Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people?
I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP?


These changes will mean more ship comps will be viable again.
Jaysen Larrisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#531 - 2014-10-18 01:58:40 UTC
Gantz Vendetta wrote:
Im sure its been said before but TLDR.

I am a fairly poor PvPer trying to get into the role of the solo bomber, and as it stands I have enough troubles just surviving, let along landing a bomb, let alone that bomb doing pathetic damage, let alone warping out after a bomb, let alone etc etc.

Why make something that is so hard to be fully succesful at even harder? Surely there is a way to target mid to large bomber fleets without completely ruining the ship in its entirety.

Nerfing bomb damage, then giving more bombs and faster fire rate is hardly fair. Not to mention the fact that bombs do such pathetic damage already.

I dont know what more to say than if this does go ahead i would like a refund on all bomber related skills, including covert ops and torps.



I do think there is a good point here. You don't want to make the bomber (or any frigate for that matter) so difficult to use that you start to really impinge on it's accessibility to players.

I'm not saying you should be able to hop into a SB after a month and half and smash folks in PVP at all...but you shouldn't set it up that it's a coffin for folks that don't have 2yrs in the game.

"Endless money forms the sinews of War" - Cicero

Biomassed - Dust & EVE Podcast

Twitter - @JaysynLarrissen
XvXTeacherVxV
Be Nice Inc.
Prismatic Legion
#532 - 2014-10-18 02:32:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship.


So if I understand you correctly...

Having ships that decloak each other is underpowered.
Having ships that don't decloak each other is overpowered.

There's a compromise here between the two extremes: fleet members decloak each other, but they also can see each other. That fixes the real issue that first fix didn't properly address. Don't just revert back to the previous system that you already decided wasn't working. "Returning to the old gameplay" makes your design team look like they don't know what they're doing. Move forward, not back.

And how come you never released that high-slot "reverb target painter"? That would give low-sec bombers some teeth. I'm sure marauder and rapier pilots would appreciate it too.
Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
Lugh Crow-Slave
#533 - 2014-10-18 03:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Mike Azariah wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png

This.


Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in?

m


you can set it so there is a delay

bomber one lands at 0
bomber 2 holds to sec warps to 5

so on and so forth


this is something much harder for real players to do quickly as they would need to wait 4+ do to server and voice coms lag

such as you cant go biased of when bomber 1 heads in because bomber two may lag on voice and hear it after bomber 3 bomber 3 still waits to warp based on the time it takes bomber one then bomber 2 to go. do to the lag the spacing is wrong and 3 lands at the same time or just b4 causing bomber 2 to warp through and de-cloak bomber 3


and if you go based on each bomber calling out you now have to wait for the server and voice lag causing the time to take much longer then isboxer.

isboxer can also control ship speed much easier then a group of players to lower the chance of de-cloaking when aligning to target

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Midgen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#534 - 2014-10-18 04:02:57 UTC
NO CCP...... my god, just NO... you are going too far with all this.... i think you have started to loose site here and are blindly stumbling into a wall
BravoSierra
Unquantized
#535 - 2014-10-18 07:31:25 UTC
I'm all for these changes. Keep it up CCP!

Cloaking is OP in EVE. Reverting the change gives cloaky blobs more rope to hang themselves as their number grow. Just because T3s/recons aren't as pervasive as bombers doesn't make them good for the game either. The mechanic is bit clunky, but it's EVE after all and somehow we will suck it up.

Changes for bubbles, firewall, etc. are great for tactical aspects of the game. I'm really happy to see them, and hope for more in the future. Stats tweaks don't deepen the game in the same way.

Mike Azariah wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png

This.


Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in?

m


Like Lugh Crow-Slave said, there has to be a delay. But it takes fifteen seconds total, and anyone not listening will lose their ship anyway.

The key thing this graphic gets wrong is only one bomber, if any, will be within 5º of the warp out and actually insta-warp. It's not easy to set up the bookmarks for any of them to be at the right angle. If the target is exactly between the 15km bomber and warp out, the 10km and 20km bombers are 10º off. To be insta-aligned, bombers have to be 2-2.6 km of each other.

It's no better than fleet warping in except the squad isn't on DScan for that couple seconds. The insta-align workarounds spread damage out.
Oxide Ammar
#536 - 2014-10-18 07:40:02 UTC
Quote:
Cloaked Ships Decloaking Each Other:
The change that allowed cloaked ships to pass through each other without decloaking was made back in 2012 to make bombing easier. With the last few years of evidence to look at, it becomes clear that organizing bombing runs has become a bit too easy.
This change will add some more complexity to organizing multiple cloaked ships, as well as returning the old gameplay of attempting to decloak other players with your own cloaked ship.
We know that some players are going to be unhappy with the way this makes their gameplay more challenging, but bombing was very viable before the cloaking change and it will continue to be very viable after.


When I started playing EVE I thought cloakies decloaking each other was bug and you were lazy to fix it, but now you are reverting to this **** again? really ?
How the hell you can convince someone to play a game saying cloaky ships decloak each other and same time they can't see each other while they are in fleet ?

Pls keep adding invisible walls and barriers to play this game like this stupid fatigue and now nerfing SBs. GG encouraging blobs with no real threat to them.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#537 - 2014-10-18 07:42:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Byson1 wrote:
is there any communication between the guys deciding to screw with mechanics?
Is there really a good reason this should even happen. or is it just to screw with people?
I think people working for ccp who play the game should not be allowed to make such decisions. I don't believe they are impartial. There needs to be an audit to see who these changes will help the most. Who in CCP?


These changes will mean more ship comps will be viable again.


There are no bombs in lowsec, and BCS aren't viable there.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#538 - 2014-10-18 07:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
as said before, 100 bombs will self annihilate

but wing after wing. . . we will darken the skies with our bombers---and you will DIE in the shade

That aside, may I ask if there are any more things I should add to my summary?

m

i would like it if the new bomb was looked at in regards to carriers and dreads either by making triage/siege immune(or resistance) to the cap void (thus they can be used to force carriers into triage) or see if anything can be done to batteries to up their nuet resistance to a point that this module is worth using over recharges.



but asit stands a small WH group will be to strongly affected by this bomb


This.

Caps need some defence from void bombs otherwise thes bombs are going to be hugely overpowered... caps are aleready rapidly becoming the weakest class of ships in the game; the can't jump far, can't jump a gate if a HIC is around, can't defend themselves against sub caps...

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#539 - 2014-10-18 07:47:50 UTC
BravoSierra wrote:
I'm all for these changes. Keep it up CCP!

Cloaking is OP in EVE. Reverting the change gives cloaky blobs more rope to hang themselves as their number grow. Just because T3s/recons aren't as pervasive as bombers doesn't make them good for the game either. The mechanic is bit clunky, but it's EVE after all and somehow we will suck it up.

Changes for bubbles, firewall, etc. are great for tactical aspects of the game. I'm really happy to see them, and hope for more in the future. Stats tweaks don't deepen the game in the same way.

Mike Azariah wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/1410/IBombers.png

This.


Nice graphic, the only issue I have with it is when do they cloak? If (btw has this little gem been confirmed?) they can be decloaked in warp if they are in the same warp bubble would they all have to space out ahead of time or would they cycle in?

m


Like Lugh Crow-Slave said, there has to be a delay. But it takes fifteen seconds total, and anyone not listening will lose their ship anyway.

The key thing this graphic gets wrong is only one bomber, if any, will be within 5º of the warp out and actually insta-warp. It's not easy to set up the bookmarks for any of them to be at the right angle. If the target is exactly between the 15km bomber and warp out, the 10km and 20km bombers are 10º off. To be insta-aligned, bombers have to be 2-2.6 km of each other.

It's no better than fleet warping in except the squad isn't on DScan for that couple seconds. The insta-align workarounds spread damage out.


Warpout could be 10AU away, at that point we're talking about 1/1000 000 of degrees. Sure, you'd have the bombs spread a little bit more, but when has the enemy been in a pretty ball which is exactly the radius of the bomb outside of trying to catch them at a warp-in?

The bombers are just tools, expect to lose a few and this tactic becomes even more viable.
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
#540 - 2014-10-18 08:44:21 UTC
All is not lost , ( we usually just have a very small group and warp our selves so this is less about de cloaking as we go different times and distances ) i am a little concerned about the 12s on bombs thing but people on the ball will get away any way with 10 secs and numbskulls dont even notice it heading their way and im sure that will continue .
The align thing was bugging me then i rememberd

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sensor-overlay-2.0-bigger-better-bookmarks-in-spacier/


This is happening , bookmarks on overlay in same expansion unless i have this wrong you could literraly set bookmarks on the fly the opposite side to each other of target , get closer (having overlay bookmark on selected item ready ) de cloak / bomb/warp by clicking slected item as usuall ;)

Never have to really align .


Hope i have this right ?