These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1021 - 2014-10-31 12:26:21 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.

I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat.

This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really?

Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now.

But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap.

Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.
Herrin Asura
Covert Operations Agency
#1022 - 2014-10-31 13:42:18 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:

You don't see it because people stopped flying BS doctrines due to bombers. Kinda ******* simple point there.


Ah yes, and all the killmails from back then vanished too.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1023 - 2014-10-31 13:54:41 UTC
Make it so any bomb can only tank one other bomb.

-reduces load on hamsters having to calculate so much AOE per tick
-gives the defender an opportunity to react in the face of an onslaught of bombing
-solves the isboxer concerns as you won't have more than two bombers/volley
-puts some actual challenge on bomber fc's to co-ordinate volleys
-PROMOTES the use of BATTLESHIPS and other ship classes that are currently avoided due to bomb threat.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#1024 - 2014-10-31 14:36:23 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Seriously what is wrong with everyone? Bombers are suppose to be good against BS. That is the POINT. Nerf them so BS are safe again? Fly in high-sec if you want no risk.

Show me all these fleets of BS being wiped from the battle field all the time. I just don't see it. Bombers are not that high on the kills list. (Ishtars are!). As for bomb runs are easy to set up (yea right). A quick look at your killboard show that you know nothing about it, and the "its my alt account that does bombing" is not going to cut it. Put up, and show the data of all this rampant bomb runs or shut up.

As for "only amour doctrines are viable". That is sort of true. But its not just because of bombers. It is how sig radius work with tracking as well. Oh and the fact that shield mods use mids and therefore you lose valuable ewar slots etc.

You don't see it because people stopped flying BS doctrines due to bombers. Kinda ******* simple point there.

You know i am sure PL dropped BS on us not that long ago. Plenty of BS fleets still around.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#1025 - 2014-10-31 14:45:37 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Make it so any bomb can only tank one other bomb.

-reduces load on hamsters having to calculate so much AOE per tick
-gives the defender an opportunity to react in the face of an onslaught of bombing
-solves the isboxer concerns as you won't have more than two bombers/volley
-puts some actual challenge on bomber fc's to co-ordinate volleys
-PROMOTES the use of BATTLESHIPS and other ship classes that are currently avoided due to bomb threat.

So in other words make bombs completyl useless.

Any properly fitted BS typically already needs two waves, with only 2 bombers per wave you would never hurt a BS. You can't really apply damage to cruisers, so what would bombs be for?

Lets face it, you don't want bomber balance. You want them out of the game.

You want to encourage BS. Then give them more tank than a t3 or a HAC. Right now with the warp changes, its hard to really want to use a BS over a HAC or t3, and that has *nothing* to do with bombers.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1026 - 2014-10-31 15:15:01 UTC
What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now.
Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.

But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#1027 - 2014-10-31 16:03:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Delt0r Garsk
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now.
Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.

But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead.

A steady barrage of damage is what torps currently do. So why bother with bombs? BTW bombers with just torps and a BLOPS is pretty effective. But the changes with jump bridges will shift that around, don't have a feel for how. (ps big fan of the jump changes).

Yea I really feel both BC and BS are overshadowed by t3s and HACs. T3s matter less since you lose SP when you die. Now they [BC and BS] are much slower I feel more tank in comparison to HACs is really needed. Of course some of that is a HAC that shall rename nameless that has a very high DPS weapon system that consumes neither cap, cpu or pg.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#1028 - 2014-10-31 18:11:02 UTC
AOE is just one of those warm & fuzzy lore ideas that just can't be controlled through stats. CCP literally can't balance it.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1029 - 2014-10-31 18:18:34 UTC
i do think combat bc's having double the sig of a cruiser doesn't help them out much either along with the slower warp speed

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

Oddsodz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1030 - 2014-11-01 02:51:33 UTC
Learn to use instacanes in your fleets you lazy funks. If the enemy is bringing combined arms against you (IE: Fleet of megas plus a bomber fleet). Then maybe you should bring a counter of your own instead of wincing about how your battleships die. CFC seem more than happy to have wings of harppys with them when they go out with battleships. Maybe you l337 types might want to think about that. I Will agree that the BOMBS and sig radius needs looking at. But bitching about how you can't use battleships because of bombs is poor form.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1031 - 2014-11-01 03:27:00 UTC
Love the stealth bomber! Used it for lots of things, and works quite well pve/pvp. I used one to matadore belt rat BS's in null in the early days. Funny thing about the cloaking changes, I am so old, I thought that cloaked ships still decloaked each other. All this time I thought I had just been lucky! Bit nervous about the sig changes.
The only 'coordinated' bombing run I had ever been in, failed miserably. Warping in wrong distances, not paying attention, bombed gate by accident. Only one bomb got off, and our targets killed us all, there was much laughter in local....before we were podded of course.
The changes won't get me out of a bomber....one day I will be in a bombing run that actually blows something up.

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.

Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#1032 - 2014-11-01 19:01:47 UTC
Rio Bravo wrote:

The changes won't get me out of a bomber....one day I will be in a bombing run that actually blows something up.


Seems all you need to do is take note of the baddies that are crying about them in here and hunt them down.

Because it isn't that they are bad, it's cause SB's are OP.
Rek Seven
Galactic Deep Space Industries
Warped Intentions
#1033 - 2014-11-01 19:50:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Kat Ayclism wrote:
Destoya wrote:
Why not just implement the cloaking change and then see how it goes. This isn't anything novel or groundbreaking or anything, it's a mechanic that was already present in the game until it got patched out.

I was looking forward to fleets that are currently hamstrung by ever present bomber threat.

This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really?

Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now.

But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap.

Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.


Changes to cloaks and balancing bombers are two different things. The original proposals would have a negative effect on all ships that use a cloak and i believe this is why CCP decided to postpone the change.

Instead of complaining about CCP not adding a bad mechanic, you should be asking them to improve the counter to bomber fleets (which they are doing) if that is your real issue.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#1034 - 2014-11-02 05:15:07 UTC
Quote:
New Anti-Capital Void Bomb:


Yes... yes that will do nicely...

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#1035 - 2014-11-02 07:34:13 UTC
Rattman wrote:

Recently CCP seemed to rudderless when it comes to targetting solutions to problems that may or may not exsist. It seems that a shotgun solution is being used due to the new patch system. Come out with a heap of half assed solutions and see how they work, get all these feed back and cancell them because they were bad. Instead of carefully working out a solution then massaging the finer points to get a solution thats better in the end

I do really wish they would put out changes for player feedback earlier. They need to throw feedback up when the previous release happens or even a couple weeks before.



Querns wrote:
Repurposing defender missiles is romantic and all, but it comes with some pretty serious technical debt to pay down. Namely -- defender missiles only shoot down incoming missiles that are targeted at you.

Yeah.

Putting them on anti-bomb duty would require a significant rework of their code.

Their code already needs reworked, though.
Defenders already need to be made so that you can activate them and have them launch automatically when missiles are incoming rather than you trying to rush to activate them every time a volley is actually incoming on you, and they would be much more useful if they could function better as an area defense weapon rather than point defense, so a couple of ships can be run for fleet defense.

Adding bombs to the target selection isn't that much in comparison, and would be better defense than hoping you can escape the blast radius and blap the bombers before they recloak.

As far as increasing bombing risk, cloak delays might be effective. Require a second or two after decloaking before firing a bomb and/or don't allow a bomber to cloak for a bit after firing so bombers can't just vanish again while setting up the next pass.

The big problem with balancing bombing runs is the fact bombers have a bit of a dual role in that they are also designed to fit torpedoes in a compact platform, so some changes to reduce the effectiveness to bombs could adversely affect torpedo bomber effectiveness since torpedo bombers have to spend an extended period on grid, decloaked. That's why the sig radius penalty is better on the bomb launcher than the hull.


I would again like to bring up balance between the Manticore and Nemesis. Again, with both having the same Grid but one having more CPU and being faster, there isn't much reason to ever fly a Nemesis. A PG boost on the nemesis might be a good idea, that way the Manticore and Namesis are complementary like the Purifier and Hound where one has more CPU and the other has more grid. It still leaves one a bit more useful than the other, generally, but there's much more reason for the Nemesis to exist when there isn't another ship that can run every single fit it can and more. A bit more speed and maneuverability might also be nice.



On a side note, how would it change things if Bombers could use any of the BS sized missiles rather than just torps?

Nolak Ataru
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#1036 - 2014-11-02 15:44:07 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
This. Literally every completely **** change you guys are just like "well the beauty of our new deployment cycle is we can change it super soon if it's bad." But on this you wuss out? Really?

Bombers existed and were hugely successful before they were given the low-effort way of bombing they currently have now.

But no. Don't make people actually have to coordinate in order to bomb. And just let the meta stagnate still with just boring comps because you refuse to actually think like you did when you were still a player that actually had experience with this crap.

Oh and to top it off, go ahead and buff bombers without introducing any downsides. Hell you still can't even mjd out of a bomb run with that flight time which is effectively the ONLY change that could even conceivably be pointed to here as attempting to bring them to balance.


What part of "the multiboxing bombers posted in the thread to tell CCP that it would not work in nerfing multibox bomber fleets" did you miss?
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#1037 - 2014-11-02 17:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Delt0r Garsk
Xindi Kraid wrote:

On a side note, how would it change things if Bombers could use any of the BS sized missiles rather than just torps?

This was in fact true a while back IIRC (was before my time). They could use Cruise missiles as well. There were many stories of bombers on shot kills. In fact i heard stories of people really using defender missiles to prevent bomber one shot deaths.

So yea bombers are not how they started in this game. But then what is?

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

45thtiger 0109
Brave Collective
#1038 - 2014-11-03 00:36:57 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
What I'd rather see is it taking a steady barrage of bombs to whelp an entire bs fleet instead of all in one go like they do now.
Also we've seen time and time again where it took only 1 wave to destroy a 'properly' fitted BS fleet.

But I do like your idea about buffing tank on battleships instead.

A steady barrage of damage is what torps currently do. So why bother with bombs? BTW bombers with just torps and a BLOPS is pretty effective. But the changes with jump bridges will shift that around, don't have a feel for how. (ps big fan of the jump changes).

Yea I really feel both BC and BS are overshadowed by t3s and HACs. T3s matter less since you lose SP when you die. Now they [BC and BS] are much slower I feel more tank in comparison to HACs is really needed. Of course some of that is a HAC that shall rename nameless that has a very high DPS weapon system that consumes neither cap, cpu or pg.


But the new T3 Destroyers you will not lose any SP at all.

**You Have to take the good with the bad and the bad with the good.

Welcome to EvE OnLiNe**

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1039 - 2014-11-03 09:30:56 UTC
On My view. Stealth bombers bombs should be made weaker. Make them be more easily poped so at most 3 are fired in a volley. Also bombers effective rof for bombs should be nerfed. SB shoudl be surprise factor and less about sustained barrages.


On other hand introduce a new class of ship. A new t2 BC sized hull in a field howitzer role, that could have a bonus to bombs HP, bomb velocity (for more range) and bomb launcher fire rate. But a ship WITHOUT cloak ( more EHP and would need to be kept alive as a field ship).

Sustained barrages should be form a dedicated ship class.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1040 - 2014-11-03 09:33:30 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
Learn to use instacanes in your fleets you lazy funks. If the enemy is bringing combined arms against you (IE: Fleet of megas plus a bomber fleet). Then maybe you should bring a counter of your own instead of wincing about how your battleships die. CFC seem more than happy to have wings of harppys with them when they go out with battleships. Maybe you l337 types might want to think about that. I Will agree that the BOMBS and sig radius needs looking at. But bitching about how you can't use battleships because of bombs is poor form.




Did you ever fought a COMPETENT group of bombers? They bomb aligned to something or someone and warp before you can do anything. Your instacanes will kill like 20% the value of their own losses before the end of the fight.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"