These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#601 - 2014-10-19 19:01:32 UTC
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Bombers are very much an issue now given that they have invalidated a large number of options in fleet setups and tactics. CCP changed cloaking to what we have today, it has caused issues, CCP are reverting it again. Now, players got along just fine before and they will get along just fine again. The only type of fleet this will heavily impact will be bomber fleets in large fleet fights. The bombers themselves will be a bit more sturdy and a good deal better at small gang/solo roaming after these changes.


"Goon Swarm Federation" - stopped reading there. Lobbyist blabla.


We make heavy use of bombers in near every fight but hey, I guess you were also against the tech nerf too because its all a grroons plot.


Couldn't care less about tech. Thing is, you just got something nuked I care about. You win. I lose. And now you show up in the typical goon style we all got used to in order to add insult to injury and see if you can farm some more tears by explaining how the people affected by that change are just too stupid to see that taking the small signature away, bombers decloaking each other and nerfed bombs are actually an improvement of bombers. No, I don't think I feel like letting myself get trolled on top of losing the only compelling aspect of eve that kept me playing.


Changing a mechanic everyone uses only harms one side?
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#602 - 2014-10-19 19:23:19 UTC
It's painfully obvious that devs don't play this game.

These changes make it so isboxed bombers are the only way to bomb.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#603 - 2014-10-19 20:14:00 UTC
so with these changes + the jump bridge ones why would i want to take SBs on a blops roam now they are sluggish and are gong to be popped to easy and taking them means my bridge gains 2x more fatigue then if i was roaming with just black ops (opening a bridge gives fatigue and them jumping to bridge them again adds more on top) so if i need to go more then 1 jump out it's now costing me more time and isk(for fuel) to bring a ship that will no longer preform well in a standard fight
JamesT KirkJr
Rogue University
The Rogue University
#604 - 2014-10-19 20:24:34 UTC
Look, the problem here is not with bombers or even really with bombs, it's with the bomb run model. Huge explosion radius + dumb bomb model + guaranteed explosion distance = mass SB runs to annihilate a 30km section of space-time using the same tactic (singular) over and over.

Try one (or a mix) of these ideas to move away from that static model and into something more varied and more balanced:



  • Speed up the bomb instead of slowing it down, get rid of the default explosion range and introduce locking to set the explosion distance before launching. Locking keeps the SB around longer before firing, making lock times and signature radius the controlling factors for their vulnerability. This is a well understood mechanic in which both SB pilots and their targets can make choices for the best fits. Locking also warns the target so they can take defensive action. (* This isn't a "bigger missile" idea. The bomb should always go off at the target distance, so the SB can warp as usual, and even if the direct target escapes, the enemy's coordination and communication should be essential to avoiding collateral damage on nearby ships.)

  • Speed up the bomb, BUT make the pilot hit the launcher again to detonate it at whatever range they want (again, no more default explosion range). They would have to hold on through the bomb's flight, but they get to pick the uncloak and fire range to maximize their chances of survival given that requirement. And ofc if they DIE FIRST, the bomb don't go boom.

  • Give us a choice of detonation ranges on the bomb launcher's options, so we can mix up tactics that way. Easiest to code, most of the advantages of the other methods, but no warning for the enemy, so worst option imo.

  • Go whole hog the other route - make bombs do less damage but have a shorter reload time. This means SBs can make more runs more quickly, but they also have to in order to do the same damage. This means they're exposed to enemy fire more, so attrition can take toll over the course of a fight. Also, the reduced damage encourages SBs to coordinate their runs on targets with the fleet - they would be softening up targets before the fleet primaries them, and also being the "tankbreakers" that let the fleet finish tough targets.



So yeah, there's lots of minimum-footprint changes you can make that add variety to the gameplay. Please note that in all of these cases, nothing requires you to screw with cloak mechanics or the uniqueness of the ship designs (they're looking more and more the same every rework). Also the countermeasures of anti-frigate ships, bubbles and long scrams can be used in opposition to all of the tactics employable in these models. Opposing forces all the way, for the best gameplay.


Now as to ISboxing, the only suggestion I have is not to try to twist game mechanics into Moebius configurations to counter third party software, and get yourself some anti-cheat software instead. The right tool for the job, and all that.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#605 - 2014-10-19 20:39:32 UTC
Fozzie, I watched your [excellent] presentation on user feedback and I feel like this post is a prime example of exactly what you are looking for:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5126202#post5126202

I also want you to know it's never personal when I or anyone else flames your bad decisions, it's usually just venting frustration.
I know you're busy with Vegas but when you get back if you could take a peek I'd appreciate it.

T-thanks
Please respond
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#606 - 2014-10-19 21:14:23 UTC
funny story, I thought cloaks always affected each other, and this was until a few months ago. I love me some cloaky. falcons and buzzards. I've always flown them as if they would decloak within 2500m of each other.

-by accident, this doesn't affect my play habits. just saying this as a cloaky lover.

-bombers have maybe been OP. don't become fixated on ISBoxer.

-ISBoxer uses something called Kernel code, that is a deeper level of code than what EVE uses. ISBoxer also hides itself. this means a few things:

1. EVE has no way to "ban ISBoxer."

2. EVE won't be programmed on a Kernel level, and you don't want it to.

3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.



Humor me for a second, and try your very hardest to pretend what I've said in this post is true. because it is. My question to ban ISBoxer peeps is... can you go into more detail about how exactly you propose ISBoxer should be banned?
Binadas
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#607 - 2014-10-19 23:36:44 UTC
I know this concern has been raised above, but I feel it important enough to echo this sentiment.

The change causing cloaked ships to decloak within 2000m of eachother represents a nerf to all cloaky combat. Please CCP, I am a little concerned that for the sake of convenience, you will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Stealth bombers aren't the only ship with a covert cloak, and this change will ensure that other forms of cloaky combat become a bit of a pain in the ass, and less viable.

As far as I understand, your intention is to rebalance bombers. Unless it is also your opinion that all other forms of cloaky combat are overpowered and need rebalancing, please don't arbitrarily harm them as a side-effect of your efforts with stealth bombers. This kind of collateral damage is irresponsible and harms the game.

With the exception of bombers in large fleet warfare (only one specific aspect of this game), all cloaky ships already pay a fair price for their ability to become invisible. Compared to non-cloaky, but otherwise equivalent ships, they all have markedly less DPS or HP. Overall I appreciate your intentions and direction with this change, I just feel your methods are a bludgeon rather than a well targeted improvement to the game

Please if there are any possible ways of implementing this change for only stealth bombers and not other ships, could you put the effort into it? This playstyle means a lot to many players in this game.
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#608 - 2014-10-20 00:43:39 UTC
It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.

Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#609 - 2014-10-20 00:53:29 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nolak Ataru wrote:
It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.

Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not.


We are the people who came up with the instacane and also the biggest users of bombing runs. Where are you people getting this null conspiracy junk from?
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#610 - 2014-10-20 01:07:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
It has become painfully obvious that CCP has not put actual effort into this game anymore. If they had, they would have known about dual-sebo blapcanes, Omens, and other support-fit cruisers and battlecruisers that were dedicated anti-bomber fit to protect large battleship heavy fleets. During the Halloween war, there were numerous bombing waves that were whittled down to insignificant numbers by dedicated support cruisers.

Stop caving into the null blocs who are too thick-headed to see the value in support ships. You had a golden opportunity with the new dessies to make them dedicated anti-bomber or anti-cloaky hunters, but I guess not.


We are the people who came up with the instacane and also the biggest users of bombing runs. Where are you people getting this null conspiracy junk from?


I didn't mention any one null bloc specifically. I salute the work you and your alliance have done in anti-bomber support, because it really is fun to know there are dedicated hulls in that 500man+ blob who's sole job is to stop you, but some of these changes are needless.
Heinrich Rotwang
Spectre Fleet Corporation
#611 - 2014-10-20 01:13:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Heinrich Rotwang]

I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore.


Sigres _is_ the end of bombers because it was the one atttribute that made them work in asymmetric encounters for smaller groups outside the big null blocks. A HP increase is not making them survive against anything. You get locked - you're dead. HP increase or not. You gonna get zerged as per usual with every other ship as a non-member of the blue donat. Or what do you think you gonna tank with that HP? And the decloak change ... "Uh once upon a time we worked around that one" - by that time, bombers were **** and they will now go back to being **** in order to fix a problem thats not even directly related. Oh yeah, you can easily set up different align points, pings and warpouts for each bomber in a NPSI fleet of randoms and newbies. Thats totally going to work from now on. You better keep a batch of BLOPS ready because I can see a mild increase in losses while bridging. Hit and runs on jump bridges? Good luck with the POS guns with that sigradius. No, it's not going to work. It's over. Careless wiped like the language channels (which was another thing that made me come back). Victim to CCPs habit of stomping over the smaller flowers that grow in the niche.
Arronicus
The Untraceable
M A R A K U G A
#612 - 2014-10-20 01:14:53 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
Quote:
Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km.


So this one step BACKWARDS is all about curbing muti-boxing software users. But in doing so you are funking up the play styles of countless players all across the game just to curb a (for now) small set of multi-boxing software users.

Please CCP (not just you Fozzie) Get your head out of the sand and ban the use of multi-box software. All you are doing with this change is addressing the symptoms and not the cause.

The cause is multi-box software. Not only has it made bombing for them that use it easy. It is also helping to out competing players in the mining community and the Incursion community.

Sure right now it's only a small bunch of players using multi-box software. But every time you miss an opportunity to ban it. All you are saying to the rest of the player base is "HTFU AND GET MORE ACCOUNTS AND YOUR POORS"

When a new player enters the game. The 1st thing he should do right now is learn how to install and use multi-box software. Because with out it, He will never be competitive in the PVP game. Why? Because he will not have the ISK to fly all the ships he is going to need to fly at the same time when competing with other players that are using multi-box software.

When one players is cornering the ICE market in hisec because he can use 40 (yes this is true) mining ships at the same time, You know something has to be done.

TL;DR

This change is wrong. Fix the real issue, not the symptoms.

Also, I got Post 69, I like that (little things)



Some people just can't resist any opportunity to cry for multiboxing software to be banned. This entire post belongs in another thread. Seriously? You're discussing mining, ice, and new player experience? GTFO.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#613 - 2014-10-20 01:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Heinrich Rotwang]

I'm willing to bet you have not tested the revamped bomber. More tank and more fitting room a nice to have as is the larger cargo, sig being bumped up isnt the end of the world and you just have to laugh when people say they cant keep up with frigate gangs anymore.


Sigres _is_ the end of bombers because it was the one atttribute that made them work in asymmetric encounters for smaller groups outside the big null blocks. A HP increase is not making them survive against anything. You get locked - you're dead. HP increase or not. You gonna get zerged as per usual with every other ship as a non-member of the blue donat. Or what do you think you gonna tank with that HP? And the decloak change ... "Uh once upon a time we worked around that one" - by that time, bombers were **** and they will now go back to being **** in order to fix a problem thats not even directly related. Oh yeah, you can easily set up different align points, pings and warpouts for each bomber in a NPSI fleet of randoms and newbies. Thats totally going to work from now on. You better keep a batch of BLOPS ready because I can see a mild increase in losses while bridging. Hit and runs on jump bridges? Good luck with the POS guns with that sigradius. No, it's not going to work. It's over. Careless wiped like the language channels (which was another thing that made me come back). Victim to CCPs habit of stomping over the smaller flowers that grow in the niche.


If only there was some sort of device to lower turret tracking...

As for the POS, battleships warp in and out before a POS targets them.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#614 - 2014-10-20 05:38:21 UTC  |  Edited by: CW Itovuo
Sounds like change for the sake of change...rather than change to correct a defect.


BOMBER CHANGES: proposed changes are typical CCP shell game. Increasing the local tank would normally provide increased combat survivability, but by increasing the base hull signature you've effectively negated that bonus. Post patch, every stealth bomber that undocks will essentially be Target Painted from the get-go.


..............Current Sig
......................Current Sig + TP 30%
.............................Phoebe proposed change

Hound.... 34...44...48
Purifier... 37...48...50
Nemesis.. 37...48...52
Manticore 39..51...51

It just gets uglier when you throw on a medium shield extender or resist rigs. Or having your new "moar bettah" sig target painted post patch. Manticore would go from 56 (new 51 base +5 sig from F-S9 Regolith Extender) to painted 72, 76 w/ heat.


CLOAK: Kindly step away from the programming desk. Things should stay as they are. Dozens of posts above detailing the who/what/where/why. Organizing BLOPs is like herding cats, no need to make them wear bells.


BOMB RELOAD: Reduced time sounds good, not sure how useful. Once & Done seems to be the norm.


ISBOXER: No experience with it. I'd be angry to find that these SB changes are a result of 3rd party software. If so, please consider other alternative fixes, like limiting the number of clients per IP address.


CAPITAL BOMB: Love the idea. Dislike the proposed method. "Aiming" things in EVE is especially difficult. Would prefer something along the lines of a very slow torpedo, the modern equivalent of laser guided bomb. Bomber pilot would have to lock & paint the target and stay on grid until impact.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#615 - 2014-10-20 07:07:41 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:


3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.


But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.:

Quote:
D. MONITORING

You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#616 - 2014-10-20 08:32:24 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:


3. EVE won't and shouldn't snoop around your computer to look at everything that is running. for reasons.


But it does, and has for years, EULA section 7.:

Quote:
D. MONITORING

You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6.


It looks at EVE not everything else on your computer.
oodell
Rotciv Rrama Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#617 - 2014-10-20 08:58:54 UTC  |  Edited by: oodell
This doesn't solve any of the problems. It just makes bombers more annoying to use for everyone, and not much else.

I keep saying this: The biggest problems with bombs are due to their 100% tie to sig radius. Shield BS, battlecruisers, shield cruisers and MWD frigs all melt for this reason. The polar opposite of this is sig-tanked setups like ANI's which can tank an obscene (112) number of bombs with boosts and heat.

At the same time, I don't have much issue with a 50-man bomber fleet pulling off a well co-ordinated run against a megathron fleet today.

So here is what I would do:

*Add explosion velocity to bombs, like torps
*Reduce explosion radius from 400 to say ~250
*Keep bomb HP like OP
*Keep the slower align time like OP
*Remove the cloak changes

With explosion velocity as a factor, more mobile ships have a better defense against bombs due to their higher speed, on top of being more difficult to hit in the first place due to ground zero being static after a fleetwarp is committed. Theoretically, shield ships are generally more mobile. Having MWD on might be a good option to mitigate bomb damage. Armor retains some of their advantage as sig is still a factor.

Obviously the damage formula would have to be carefully worked out, but that's the concept.

This will also reduce the number of target options a multiboxer can feasibly go after with a single squad, which is what the vast majority of them run. They could try to move to two squads, but this is much more difficult., expensive and logistically difficult. If you look at the kills multiboxers get, the vast majority of them are shield cruisers, destroyers and bc's, outside of single-target attacks.

The cloak changes are clunky and widely disliked. You say that bomb runs happened before and they will after this reversion, but that was before people adopted anti-bomber techniques like perimeter bubbles, pre-hic warpins and the like. Or even had the presence of mind to think bombers were on field. This change also severely hurts cloaky gate camps and blops drops.

edit:
Otherwise I like the new combat role potential, and the align and warp speed nerfs are needed. It looks like the Nemesis is still complete crap though.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#618 - 2014-10-20 11:17:31 UTC
nemesis definitely needs some help .. aswell as all of them needing more PG so they can actually fit some tank ...
nemesis is the slowest of the bunch which is unusual for gallente ships...
consider reducing the cpu need of bulkheads so it can hull tank .. 40 cpu is very high ..

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

Marcia en Welle
Doomheim
#619 - 2014-10-20 12:05:29 UTC
I am all for these changes to bombers. But changing the cloaking mechanic is regressive and adds no gameplay benefit alongside having lots of unintended side effects to many other areas of the game.

Yes, bombers used to decloak each other, but then we also used to warp to 15km at stargates, and probes had to be individually positioned each time.
Oxide Ammar
#620 - 2014-10-20 12:16:31 UTC
Aside from the stupid nerf to cloaky ships, has anyone run the numbers if the 4 bombers will be able to run 3x tech II torp launchers + tech II bomb launcher with out sacrificing arm and leg of your fit ? because if not that means clearly Fozzie have zero knowledge about bombers.

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.