open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Stealth Bombers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15]

Author Topic

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:17:00 - [421]
 

Oh yea

And what as been repeated many times before - make a new class, heavy bomber. Put Citadel torpedoes on it, if you want and then just nerf the range on current bombers that apparently is the problem.

Cheers

Vorlich Dreculia
Amarr
Sick Tight
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:21:00 - [422]
 

Here's a novel idea: Give bombers a special missile that has secondary effects. A torp bombardment that damages, and warp scrams a BS would be very cool, it allows you to have a second wave of your own battleships to destroy the target, and the SBs get on the killmail with some significant damage.

Because they wont kill a BS on their own, you have to keep them still a viable weapon to use against smaller ships, so keep the cruise missile version, or maybe tweak it to make it a cruiser killer.

Ruoska
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:33:00 - [423]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
...we firmly believe this new focused role with the ability to perform that role well is far better than the one it has now of mediocre damage to wide range of targets and being a cannon against smaller ships which does not really make sense at all.



And therefore no amount of pleas and reasoning shall deter you from doing exactly what you want. I understand. Sad

Any chance we could delay this improvement, say until 2010?

I'm finding hard as it is to find a (Caldari) hull to fly in PvP (ECM changes may or may not diminish that selection further, who knows how orgastic does the nerfing get).

Whaddaya say, help a bum in need and put this on hold for this year?

Lagn Gita
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:40:00 - [424]
 

disclaimer: i have never flown an SB so maybe this is stupid/overpowered. my apologies for wasting your time ahead of time.


so what about a new type of cloak? you can turn it on while in warp, but trying to warp with it already on decloaks you and doubles/triples(whatever) alignment time. so SB can warp to target, turn cloak on during warp and be unseen without having to warp off grid and crawl to target to be, you know, stealth... still allows what SB's do now on grid with the added surprise but without some of the unkillable benefits of cov ops cloak. you'd have to deactivate it to warp off but that's the same as is now.

just throwing something out there. im sure im missing something.

Vorlich Dreculia
Amarr
Sick Tight
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:40:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: Imhothar Xarodit
I think there is a module that should have been coupled with stealth bombers from day one: Passive Targeting Systems.
Stealth bombers should be able to use the Passive Targeting mods while cloaked and trigger their launchers while cloaked, automatically decloaking the bomber.


This man knows what he is talking about. That's exactly what a submarine, or a stealth bomber does.

That's why the first thing the Hood knew about nearby enemies was that it was under torpedo attack, and why the Iraqi's first knowledge of war in 1991 was when laser guided bombs started landing on air defence positions in Iraq.

They are supposed to be opening attacks, able to kill a few select targets and then get the hell out while the fleet or air force engages.

They SHOULD be able to kill a BS with relatively small numbers, and they SHOULD die very quickly to a counterattack, but SHOULD be able to get away if they are fitted and flown correctly.

It's just up to CCP to figure out a way for that to happen...

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:42:00 - [426]
 

Originally by: Overbrain
Originally by: Zantaz
MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How unexpected. Chronitis replies and ignores 14 pages of SB pilots begging him not to make ******ed changes to a poor broken ship that just needs a simple un-nerfing.

This is like something out of George Orwell's 1984, or Catch-22.

In Iceland, you do not listen to customers, customers listen to you!

Nice!


I believe this thread is scripted, im sure even we leave it completely empty, devs will still post responses saying "thank you for your replies , it all helps greatly, but we will still do just as we proposed at the beginning, enjoy"

omglol

My thought exactly.
I'll be on SiSi sometime soo. Anyone who willing to test these torpedo jokes are free to come to FD-MLJ.

Toyo Italari
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:52:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
...we firmly believe this new focused role with the ability to perform that role well is far better than the one it has now of mediocre damage to wide range of targets and being a cannon against smaller ships which does not really make sense at all.




See, this is what gets me. As I mentioned several times before, I'm very good at close range combat with my Hound. Drones **** me off, but that's about it. I've got the timing of my cloak down to the point where I'm only visible for 5 seconds, and rarely ever get targeted as there are higher priority targets in my gang (with far far better tank). I blink to avoid someone seeing me on their overview and going "Oh! Easy kill!" while I wait for my modules to finish their cycle.

If I had BS to blow up, I'd be fine with Torps. Hell, give me a Rapier in my gang and I'll still be fine with Torps (nothing like slow speed but huge sig radius from an MWD).

But will the 10% bonus, with no bonus to explosion velocity or sig radius, be sufficient to make a bomber good at its role?

No.

With 3x Caldari Navy BCUs in the low, all skills Level V, using Arbalest Siege Launchers (given that most people with use those or Malkuth.. particularly people who trained cruise just for their bombers), you're looking at a 4.2k volley (50% bonus from Covert Ops V included).

Don't get me wrong, that's a huge volley for a frigate. With Arbs and no rigs, it's ~500 DPS. Again, for a frigate, that ain't bad at all. Until you take into account that a poorly tanked BS easily has 50k EHP, you have no other bonuses (save for velocity) so the damage is going to drop quickly on any moving target, and a 4.2k RAW damage volley will generally be reduced by 70% or more depending on the BS tank, leaving you with an actual volley of about 1.2k.

1.2k, against 50k EHP (which is still a **** poor tank) is a net DPS of 143.

It would take a single bomber 6 minutes to do enough damage to really have a chance at taking down that BS. What happens when there are BS with real tanks (100k+ EHP is not unexpected)? How many bombers are expected to gang together just to hope to maybe get a lone BS kill?

I can understand wanting to throw it on SiSi, just to see how it would work out, even if it doesn't. With these numbers though, I really don't see a reason to fly a Torp bomber instead of... Well, pretty much anything else.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 01:55:00 - [428]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
As always, things may change as we continue with playtesting and feedback but we firmly believe this new focused role with the ability to perform that role well is far better than the one it has now of mediocre damage to wide range of targets and being a cannon against smaller ships which does not really make sense at all.


Some people believe in gremlins and snarks... does that make sense?
Your changes makes even less... You were proposed SB's as WW2 U-boats - they were doing damn good for their 2 torps, kicking crap from anyone unwary of their presence, but those aware were kicking crap out of them in exchange.

EVE SB is a precise tool in in right hands, but it can't kill even smaller frigate if you're just dropped yourself in it thinking "OMFG ITS COOL". It seems you yourself falling into latter category. Very, very sad look of you.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 02:05:00 - [429]
 

Edited by: Tonto Auri on 30/03/2009 02:06:42
Originally by: Toyo Italari
Don't get me wrong, that's a huge volley for a frigate. With Arbs and no rigs, it's ~500 DPS. Again, for a frigate, that ain't bad at all. Until you take into account that a poorly tanked BS easily has 50k EHP


For the record: 50k EHP is just a DCII. Any attempt to REALLY tank a BS will either increase EHP two times or have active tank comparable to the expected DPS from a 2-3 bombers.

EDIT: Or both...

Threv Echandari
Caldari
Moira.
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.03.30 03:13:00 - [430]
 

Thanks for listening Chronotis but please leave the Bounus on the Cruise Launchers. IT the only way to fkeep some flexiblity and some DPS.

galphi
Gallente
Furnulum pani nolo
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2009.03.30 03:25:00 - [431]
 

Chronotis, since you've *firmly* decided to stick with the torpedo bomber, can you also lower it's signature radius so that it takes a bit longer to target the bomber? It'd definitely helps its survivability in close as well (low radar cross-section is true stealth anyway Very Happy)

Pedro Sangre
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.03.30 03:27:00 - [432]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
3. boosting bombs (again!)

You are correct, bombs have not seen much action at all because of their 0.0 application mostly and expense though the ideas some of you made to have them act like grenades so they explode regardless of whether you are dead or not is something we will look into (they do explode if you warp away FYI).



I don't know about anyone else, but my reaction to that last part was surprise followed by "oh really...."

Had that been clearly documented, I don't think I would even suggested the "grenade" change. That makes bombs just fine IMO (assuming it works as advertized heh), and may make a difference for quite a few other people as well.

yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.03.30 04:04:00 - [433]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

The stealth bombers...as glass cannons... is far better than the one it has now of mediocre damage to wide range of targets and being a cannon against smaller ships which does not really make sense at all.



Many thanks for your input Chronotis.

Doing "damage to wide range of targets and being a cannon against smaller ships" is exactly why we like this ship. You have summed up into one line the thing that hundreds of pages on the eve-o forums have been asking for.


Mid Range Glass Cannon Frigs - Kitsune Case Study

Caldari T2 frigates sold in the last week in The Forge:

buzzard, 1,136
crow 538
manticore 460
hawk 368
raptor 265
harpy 258
kitsune 82

At 460 units the manticore is popular but not overpowered yet the kitsune is very unloved at only 82 units. The main reason why people don't fly the kitsune is because it is a glass ewar cannon that dies very quickly in battle due to it's light tank, 35km to 70km range of operation and high ewar effectiveness.

Given the current popularity of ECM platforms (blackbird 601 units, falcon 534 units, griffin 424 units) there is clearly a problem with expensive, mid weapon range frigs in that you will have low angular velocity while sitting nicely in optimal range of many weapons systems.

The glass cannon approach to frigates has resulted in a very low life expectancy for the kitsune and has thus made it redundant in most situations, taking a similar approach to the stealth bomber would similarly make it redundant.


Torpedoes

To attack eve battleships you need sustained dps. The CCP team seem to have been seduced by the idea of submarines but RL submarines work because RL battleships have weak points to exploit such as the magazine. In eve you must strip all of the armour off before doing structural damage hence sustained dps will always be more useful than alpha.

If you want to replicate subamarines then make armour piercing torps to ignore armour and hit straight at the structure. Laughing

The kitsune study above shows the stupidity of putting a light frigate at medium range in a battle yet a torp platform of any sort will be required to remain in this position for sustained periods of time if it wishes to be effective against battleships.

For a mid range ship the speed tank and range tank are out so you've got to be nuggets tough or the ship will be worthless.

Please make a new class of heavy bomber if you are going to do this.


Battleships - Likely tactical situations for the new bomber

Given the previous comments about survivability i can only see the new bomber being used in a warp in, fire one voley, warp out sense and how this is an improvement over simply dropping the price of bombs escapes me.

Some pilots have good experiences using bombers at close range, however i suspect these people are in a minority. If you wish to expand on their tactics please look at creating a new ship for them instead of destroying a popular ship.

Battleships are mostly found in low sec pirate gangs and 0.0 fleets. Reducing bombers to these targets will massively reduce the usefulness of this ship.

And Finally

No offense CCP but your changes are going in the wrong direction and the manticore sales figures do not support your claim that the ship "does not really make sense at all." The ship makes a lot of sense to many people.

In the current bomber you have massive flexibility of targets and situations where you can be useful that are provided by the bonuses, especially explosion radius. Please keep this flexibility and please show us an 'omg bombers are overpowered' thread if our range and target choice is too much.

Suggested bonuses:
10% torpedo velocity
16.66% cruise explosion radius
10% racial torpedo, bomb and cruise damage
xx% cloaked velocity

So please leave us a range tanked ship that does mediocre damage to a wide range of targets and is a cannon against smaller ships.Very Happy

Dr Resheph
Amarr
YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY
Posted - 2009.03.30 05:18:00 - [434]
 

Chronotis you're on the right track, with the exception of keeping cruise launchers.

That reeks of compromise, when everyone knows it's pointless without the damage and signature resolution bonus. T2 torps have range as well, and with the 50% damage they'd be superior to cruise at hitting most smaller targets too.

Additionally, Bomb changes are unnecessary if you admit part of their lack of appeal is the 0.0 requirement. Allow bombs and bubbles in empire for wars, and you won't need anything else.

A word about the nay saying as well...

People don't like flying ships that are interdependent on teamwork, no matter how good. Currently, Stealth Bombers don't need teamwork. If this change goes through, flying these ships around solo would be pretty ridiculous as you'd be vulnerable to any frigate or cruiser. Don't use that as a measure of balance. Capitals aren't solo ships either, nor are ECM ships, Logistics or Coverts.. yet they're all quite powerful.

Shailo Koljas
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.30 07:06:00 - [435]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. covert ops cloaks

This would make them way overpowered. You would have something that can do everything any other covert ops vessel does plus put out a massive about of damage.


Then as other people have suggested, allow a stealth bomber to lock targets while cloaked. The moment the lock is achieved, the cloak drops and the pilot should be ready to launch their weapons or die. Perhaps this is an innate ability of the hull, or perhaps it requires the passive targeter. Either way it fits the name of the ship without being horribly overpowered.

Quote:

3. boosting bombs (again!)

You are correct, bombs have not seen much action at all because of their 0.0 application mostly and expense though the ideas some of you made to have them act like grenades so they explode regardless of whether you are dead or not is something we will look into (they do explode if you warp away FYI).


Personally, I'd love it if bombers lost the ability to carry missiles as a primary offensive weapon, and became dedicated bomb-launching platforms. A suggestion that I read elsewhere suggested cheaper, smaller bombs, multiple launchers and more status effects (props to Spazzle).

Basically, bring the bomb cost under 0.5M ISK. Create new AoE temporary effects like 'zap MWD', 'web 50%', 'turret disrupt' (no warp disrupt); while removing or diminishing the current damage types. Make the bombs smaller so that maybe 5 fit in a launcher, and allow the use of multiple launchers with a RoF similar to bubble launchers. Also, give bombs a variable launch direction - if a ship is targeted, the bomb goes in that direction, otherwise straight ahead (roughly), while keeping the AoE and fixed flight time.

Now combine that with the passive locking, and you have a ship that should be quite fun to fly, isn't an instant pwnmobile, yet can provide some valuable support mechanisms against a hostile fleet. Sure, you could get 5+ ships all fitting triple void bombs to smack a dread or RR fleet a bit, but that just adds another aspect to fleet warfare. The bubble-launcher RoF also means the bomber pretty much has to cloak and make another run from somewhere else.

Isn't there also a depth-charge type bomb in the database? Does 1 damage to everything in range, and decloaks anything it hits - so bombers become an anti-cloaker ship as well, with a bit of luck (oh my, bombers on a gatecamp with that bomb would be nasty (and I love my covops)).

Hell, if you want to fixate on the glass-cannon approach, why not do both? You already have Caldari ships that split by weapon type, why not provide two alternate hulls for bombs vs torps, while keeping the current skills for the hull and cloak the same?

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.03.30 07:21:00 - [436]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. covert ops cloaks

This would make them way overpowered. You would have something that can do everything any other covert ops vessel does plus put out a massive about of damage.



Honestly, do you even play this game anymore? This is massively wrong, no matter what you have in mind for "any other covert ops vessel".

If you're talking about force recons, then sorry, you're wrong. A cloaked paper-thin dps ship is FAR less damaging than a force recon's ewar capabilities. A covert bomber just increases the incoming dps, a force recon locks you down while you sit helplessly waiting to die. And this is true regardless of whether bombers use torps or cruise, even a 500 dps torpedo bomber would be far from overpowered compared to what a force recon is capable of. DPS is not everything.

If you're talking about covert ops frigates, then you're wrong again. Covert ops frigates can use scan probes, covert stealth bombers can not. While I realize that you've severely nerfed combat probing with the latest patch, this is still a major role that a stealth bomber can not even come close to filling.

Quote:
2. allow the stealth bombers to fit both cruise and siege launchers

This is something we are going to try out on sisi. You will have the option of siege or fitting cruise missiles for range. The difference being that only torpedoes will get the ship bonuses. So for the few of you who like to snipe from long distance trading damage for safety, will do some damage to a wide range of targets as now but it will need to be in scenarios where you have the right gang setup.



Sorry, but this is a terrible idea. Stealth bombers are already pretty mediocre with cruise missiles, and now you want to give them a massive damage nerf?


Besides, take a look at all the special role bonuses of your proposed bombers: cruse fitting, torp fitting, bomb launcher fitting, cloak recalibration delay. This is just a hack job solution, tacking on another special module rather than fixing the fundamental problem.

Quote:
The stealth bombers primary role will be focused against larger targets acting as glass cannons allowing it to do a large amount of volley damage to battleships. For it to accomplish that role:


Do you even play this game? Going up against a battleship at close range is suicide for bombers. Your proposed bombers have nowhere near enough damage output to one-shot a battleship without overwhelming numbers (and if you CAN'T kill a battleship with 40v1 odds, you should go back to WoW), and they will be massacred if they stick around for a second shot.

Quote:
- Their cloaked velocity bonus has been increased so at max skills and depending on your setup (nanos in low or using a 200mm plate for example) you can go ~1,000 m/s whilst cloaked to allow better maneuvering whilst cloaked.


This is a worthless bonus without the covert ops cloak. As soon as you warp in (uncloaked), everyone will know you are there. Any target that is potentially vulnerable to a bomber attack will simply warp out, they aren't going to just sit there waiting for you to screw around moving under cloak.

Even if for some bizarre reason you want to use torpedo bombers, the correct solution is going to be using a covert ops frigate to warp in directly to torpedo range. The cloaked velocity bonus will never be useful in any plausible PvP scenario.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.03.30 07:31:00 - [437]
 

Now then: if you want to really fix bombers, instead of just throwing on another hack-job "solution" that delays the complaint threads for a couple weeks, here is how to do it:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032713&page=2#46

Note the part about fixing the existing close-range weapon (bombs) rather than trying to add another one. Do that, and screwing around with torps is not necessary.

You can thank me for saving your job with a Manticore BPO and a couple tickets to fanfest.

Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.30 07:46:00 - [438]
 

Originally by: Gner Dechast
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

2. allow the stealth bombers to fit both cruise and siege launchers

This is something we are going to try out on sisi. You will have the option of siege or fitting cruise missiles for range. The difference being that only torpedoes will get the ship bonuses. So for the few of you who like to snipe from long distance trading damage for safety, will do some damage to a wide range of targets as now but it will need to be in scenarios where you have the right gang setup.



I see what you did there... Laughing

So the issue really is the current range(/dps) after all, and you wanted to nerf that (whole rage at first, but dps nerf being acceptable as well)?

Let's see now, I have this little Nemesis I use. It's very simple setup, 3x Arbalests, 4x Muon damps with resolution scripts, 2x cap relay II's and 2x damp rigs. Does whopping 165dps (150dps with my skills), which I'm sure you admit is pretty damn low.
..

Check the alpha damage buddy, not the dps.

But I do agree on this point, giving us unbonused cruises will sting the pilots, can't we have both bonuses? I don't see what would be particuarily wrong with that. Any reason for not allowing us to keep them?

Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
Posted - 2009.03.30 09:01:00 - [439]
 

Stealth bombers will need a considerable boost to torpedo velocity, otherwise these changes will entirely kill them out.

The reason being, is putting bombers in the range of disrupters and tacklers is absolute suicide. They need some sort of range buffer or they need to have a large boost to torpedo velocity so they can drop a volley on the target and still be able to get out of harms way.

I still think this is a horrible idea, And that a Torpedo Bomber should be a different ship

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.03.30 09:05:00 - [440]
 

It has been said dozens of times, but in case Chronotis missed it, you need SUSTAINED DPS to kill a Battleship.

You'd need like 20+ Stealth Bombers to MAYBE one volley an untanked Raven, and I'd rather have a properly varied fleet of 20 ships than just 20 Stealth Bombers.

In addition, no Battleship roams alone unless it's bait, and in a fleet up close, you are 100% garantueed to get shot the second you decloak.

Close range Stealth Bomber = Dead Stealth Bomber or 0.01 DPS Stealth Bomber

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.03.30 09:09:00 - [441]
 

Originally by: Dr Resheph
Capitals aren't solo ships either, nor are ECM ships, Logistics or Coverts.. yet they're all quite powerful.


So wrong, Capitals don't die with one hit, ECM ships are 100-150km out, Logistics have a mean tank and Coverts don't even come in to it.

Chronotis is demanding we bring an untankable 20mil Frigate within firing range of every ship in the enemy fleet, which is suicide as it can't tank anything and it isn't 150km out, it can't even use a MWD to speed tank, it would just die and have accomplished nothing.

You *may* be able to cloak, but then your DPS is back to zero.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.30 09:25:00 - [442]
 

Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 30/03/2009 09:27:18
1. cocd - iDONTCARE(tm) ... cloaked velocity bonus is ok
2. FIX DA BOMBS !!! the best thing you can do for SBs is to fix the bombs and bomblaunshers.

If you want to create a close range, suicide anti-BS platform, create a bomb with propulsion of 200-250m/s. Detonates on impact, can be shot down, no splash damage.

This way, the bomber should be able to fit 3 bomb launchers with a focused payload (propulsion bombs on one target) or carpet bomb an area (3 regular bombs on one spot).

With more bomb types to use, the stealth bomber can become a true bomber and not a missile platform.

(my dream are 'laser' guided bombs, wing/squad leader uses target painters to designate a target, bombers just warp in, launch special kind of bomb close to target and warp out. bombs make for the pained target by themselves)

yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.03.30 11:15:00 - [443]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. covert ops cloaks

This would make them way overpowered. You would have something that can do everything any other covert ops vessel does plus put out a massive about of damage.



Fair enough, If you've ever sat on a 0.0 gate camp you'll know how many cov-ops are flying about and if all of them suddenly fitted painters and torps there'd be bombers everywhere ganking people.

Recon is not a good comparison because they are much rarer due to cost, people use the cov-ops as a taxi and i'd estimate a 10:1 ratio of cov-ops to recons/blockade runners passing through your average camp.


Originally by: Zarak1 Kenpach1
most of you are thinking you are going to be doomed to flying bombers within 20km of the target when you know full well there is t2 long range torps and velocity rigs you can utilize to get far beyond 20km. you should potentially come close to doubling that range with those two being used together.



Manticore 20mill + 2x missile velocity rigs 30mill + Fittings 5mill = 55 mill for a ship that now sits in the optimal range of a battleship with no transversal. Rolling Eyes Go fly a kitsune against battleships if you don't understand why this is a bad idea.


Originally by: Gner Dechast

I have this little Nemesis.....has damps to support a Manticore that has 4x racial jammers on it, and whenever (and that's frankly very very often) his jamming fails, I buy us little more time delaying the target's locking.



Good post mate. What are your usual targets with these tactics and would they be possible with torps?

My experiences with a sensor damping hound are that it's most useful in small gang situations where targets would be frig to bc sized. In a fleet it makes a flexible ship that i can fit out for 15mill but a quick run through last weeks kills on our board shows a 50:1 ratio of sub BS to BS sized ships.

That's 98% of kills where a hound would suddenly be useless Sad

Critta
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.30 12:39:00 - [444]
 

Edited by: Critta on 30/03/2009 12:42:11
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. covert ops cloaks

This would make them way overpowered. You would have something that can do everything any other covert ops vessel does plus put out a massive about of damage.


I'm not so sure I agree, and the logic you use to try and explain this is simply shocking :D

Let me examine the other covert ops using classes:

Covops - probing bonuses - ability to fit expanded launcher
Recons - ewar bonuses, tackling bonuses etc.

Last I checked, bombers don't get either of these, all they have is dps.

For probing you CPU will limit you to a core probe launcher unless you make some major fitting cutbacks, which mean's they won't be threatening the covops without utterly ****ing their DPS.

As far as threatening the role of recons, I don't see bombers webbing/scramming/nossing from 40-60km so they aren't threatening their role.

I've also just done some playing with EFT, you can easily get some of the recons to push out only slightly lower DPS to the SB (although nowhere near the alpha damage), so it's not even as though the level of DPS is unprecedented when mixed with a covops cloak. (Before anyone starts screaming at me, I know nobody would fly a DPS fit cloaked recon, but you *can* push them up to the 400-ish DPS the bomber looks like it will be kicking out unrigged)

The only difference it would make to bombers is allowing them to warp cloaked. Allowing the ship to fulfil it's role as a *stealth* bomber rather than a "I sit on this grid hoping something might come to me" or "Look at me I'm on grid with you and I just cloaked aren't I stealthy" bomber as they are at the moment.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.30 12:49:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. covert ops cloaks

This would make them way overpowered. You would have something that can do everything any other covert ops vessel does plus put out a massive about of damage.


First of all let me say that on the whole I like what you are doing to bombers.

But the entire status of the cloak has always evaded me. 'Stealth' to me suggests the element of surprise, of which there is none if a ship has to warp onto a field uncloaked. Sure the other cloaks allow a bomber to maneuver faster and become invulnerable if the player is fast enough to hit the module, but the big giveaway to the enemy is there, allowing them to adapt in as much time as it takes for the bomber to get in range and decloak.



We partially agree here and will take a slightly different approach to the one mentioned previously. We will allow them to fit covert ops cloaks so you can achieve the ultimate element of surprise and be able to choose the right time to launch an attack however trading this powerful ability off, there will be a 30 second cloak reactivation delay so when you commit yourself to battle, you are vulnerable once the initial volley is fired. In addition, there will be no bonus to cloaked velocity. Combine the cloak with the torpedoes and being able to approach the targets unnoticed will make for the the best stealth bomber possible.

I will start a new thread on this shortly so we can continue feedback based on the latest proposals.

Many thanks to everyone who took the time to participate in this thread and I hope even if you disagreed with the changes that the open format is something you find useful.

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.30 12:57:00 - [446]
 

Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Gner Dechast

I have this little Nemesis.....has damps to support a Manticore that has 4x racial jammers on it, and whenever (and that's frankly very very often) his jamming fails, I buy us little more time delaying the target's locking.



Good post mate. What are your usual targets with these tactics and would they be possible with torps?



90% of the time, the group has consisted of mere 3 ships, Sabre (with fitting scanner, believe it or not), manticore with 4 named racials and nemesis with 4 resolution damps. This is basicly a moving stealth camp - even the sabre has a cloak. It is extremely rare for us to stumble upon a target of opportunity while moving and ever more rare to get anyone from the belts (we gave up belt roaming, infact).

In the current reality we try to serve customers from destroyer sized hulls to ...yes, if all variables are just right, battleship hulls (stupid young player traveling alone). But to be honest, those don't really exist aside from once a month random exception to the rule. There is a very long list of "no-touchy" ships that we can't possibly imagine handling, like Vagabonds, Ishtars, Zealots etc etc.

Sabre obviously does what it does - and the bombers are at about 40km range from the expected engagement area. If you can imagine the situation of jump-in pray you see that this already yanks the Nemesis to potentially point-blank range since the target can spawn at any side of the gate, some which have enormous radius'es. Same will happen to the Nemesis, apparently, after ECM changes.

I wonder about the people who talk about "alpha" (volley damage). They must fly these ships in vastly larger groups than we do, as barely ever kill anyone with one strike damage. For us, it's almost always abot dps, sustained damage, desperately trying to avoid losing the sabre or bombers in the process. Most kill are really blood pumping experiences, and yes, losses happen.


Could this be still done with torpedoes?

Let's reflect on the point made earlier about jump-in targets and how they can be at greatly variable distances from you due to gate sizes and the standard ca. 13km spawn distance from within the gate sphere surface. While tactical modules and their optimals are very important to the gang, the missile range is an absolute must. If we have 16km torpedo range, this would always put you into the middle of the gate, hoping your missile range will reach the spawning ship (not very stealthy that way, eh?). If we have flight time bonuses, say to about 30km or so, this still places you there, at the gate on the larger variants. Only with smaller gates could you detach yourself from the gate and still retain missile reach to all possible spawning spots around the gate.

Then, what have we killed usually? Cruisers and haulers, to be honest. Quite a few battlecruisers simply out tank us and we just have to melt away and let the person go. Destroyers already die by Sabre's fire before bomber's missiles reach the target. So, basicly cruisers and haulers. With torpedoes? Well, cruisers will definately drop out of our menu for reasons everyone here understands. In our style, this would reduce bombers are auxiliary damage for caught T2 hauler popping...

I do believe that torpedos would pretty much kill what we've been doing. It's been very risky and tough already.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only