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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.30 13:09:00 - [1]

Continuing on from the previous thread, we would like to start fresh with feedback on the ideas below which will be put onto sisi for further playtesting and feedback in the days and weeks ahead.

We are looking into improving and focusing bombers to be more bomber like with a more focused target group and bonuses which compliment this role much better.

The role of a stealthy glass cannon is to ambush and deliver a large amount of firepower through volleys of torpedoes onto large targets. To facilitate this new role better, the bonuses and some of the attributes are being changed appropriately.

So what are we looking at changing exactly?

1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak

However they will have a 15 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.

2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes.

This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result.

3. Bombers will gain bonuses to torpedoes

Each racial bomber will gain a damage bonus to their racial damage torpedoes (EM = amarr, Explosive = minmatar, Kinetic = caldari, thermal = gallente) and a torpedo explosion velocity bonus so they can better hit large targets which are moving in addition to a torpedo velocity bonus increasing the range and speed of the attack.

4. They will still use bombs

Bombs will be getting cheaper and their velocity will be increased to 2,000 m/sec.

So an example Nemesis bonus description will be like this:


Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus:
10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level
20% bonus to torpedo velocity per level

Covert Ops Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level
15% bonus to torpedo thermal damage per level

Role Bonus:
-99.75% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs
-100% targeting delay after decloaking

Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators, covert ops cloaks and bomb launchers

As ever, everything is subject to change and feedback is welcome on these ideas :)

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:13:00 - [2]

Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 30/03/2009 13:13:02
Looks more promesing this Smile. Cov ops is indeed a nice addition, and will make the stealths more vuable as ambushers (and more expencive to loose).

Tho, maby add a flight time bonus as well to the torps? To allow for a bit more range? Just my two cents Razz

Shadow Company
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:20:00 - [3]

Edited by: IceAero on 30/03/2009 13:42:03
Awesome! The covert ops cloak is a Very nice and needed addition!

I'm not sure if their alpha strike ability is high enough though, Stealth Bombers are just insanely easily to kill in a battleship, and in a small to medium sized fight they simply will not live to see more than a few volleys (9 second RoF)...I'd have to run the numbers. I'll do it now and edit this post.

Top Skilled Pilot w/ new SB and TWO BCU II:

4261 racial volley damage with rage torps @ 27km (500 DPS)
3000 racial volley damage with jav torps @ 46km (350 DPS)
3328 racial volley damage with T1 torps @ 30km (388 DPS)

That is a fair amount of damage...I think it looks about right.

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:21:00 - [4]

Edited by: Gner Dechast on 30/03/2009 20:04:41
Okay, now it's a completely new ball game.

I no longer think these changes are the harbingers of doom. I will keep on running scenarios in my mind and I will take those to SiSi once we have this available for testing.

This sure takes away the old bomber, no arguing there, whinage of "lost" training time will be heard and so on. But will this new deliver? There still won't be solo BS'es around New Eden, so this will come down to how does this fit into realistic target groups.

I'm looking forward to some real trials with this.


After using sizable portion of today with pen and paper, several VoiP calls to other pilots and thinking, re-thinking and again...

This doesn't look half as promising as it did at first Sad

Problem simply lies within this alpha damage it is supposed to inflict. While I agree that no one, nor even two, should simply alpha strike PvP fitted battleship - the numbers it takes with the proposed bonuses is just stupid.

If local channel explodes with 50 neutrals/hostiles, you can bet your hiney that all solo battleships (or small target groups) are GONE/cloaked/docked/logged.

My checks also indicate that you have thought about going against BC's and made sure that is of questionable success at the best, regardless of setups. You REALLY want to strip all forms of other uses then? Just anti-BS?

I'm again leaning towards begging you to consider just making a new ship class. And if that is to work someday, you will need ENORMOUS volley damage buff, several hundred percents, I'm afraid...

But, let's bring it to SiSi and get some hard examples.

Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:24:00 - [5]

wouldn't a cov ops cloak make them overpowerd ?

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:30:00 - [6]

Originally by: Holy Lowlander
wouldn't a cov ops cloak make them overpowerd ?

Not so. 30 sec reactivation delay makes sure of that.

They are after all glass cannons.

They now need to work in gangs, and adds as a supprise dps ship that can overwhelm other ship. Imo, a very nice addition to take on silly station hugging BSs.

Also if they get assigned drones to they will pop, so its blanaced well enough.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:32:00 - [7]

I really, really wanted the 1000m/s speed while cloaked.

I hope people are happy. They have their covert ops cloak now which requires no brain to use, and have gotten rid of potentially the most unique tactical advantage given to a ship in this game in exchange.

CCP, I know you are trying to find a direction that will make people happy and create a specific role for SB at the same time, but I hate this. However, a lot of people will love the cloak change... and most likely none of them will ever fly the ship again after they lose their first one after the change.

They will be the easiest ship to uncloak in a bubble camp due to their slow speed, and it will take ages for them to haul their slow butts around now to line up for a bomb/torpedo run. End result, it will be far more boring to fly for the people that actually do fly them.

The cloaked speed increase was brilliant, please don't cave to the covert ops cloak noobs.

Posted - 2009.03.30 13:32:00 - [8]

Can you explain me why someone should fly this new ship?

Cheaper solution for same role:
Torp Raven with cloak, fitted with active tank and a sensor booster in the mid.

Just cloak somewhere into the system and wait for your gang mates shout "POINT". Then decloak and warp @ zero to eat the enemy tackled/webbed/painted BS/BC.

Better DPS, Alpha, and lower isk risk (forget about comparing tank).

Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:35:00 - [9]

Edited by: Lumy on 30/03/2009 13:36:16
Originally by: Holy Lowlander
wouldn't a cov ops cloak make them overpowerd ?

With 30 sec reactivation delay they decloak, fire a salvo and then die.

Their max range will be under 30km or 40km when rigged. Something like
1500m/sec * 6 sec * 1.5 * 1.5 (skills) * 1.5 (bonus) * 1.15 * 1.15 (rigs).

So I'm skeptical.

Edit: removed note about targeting delay.

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:43:00 - [10]

Originally by: Ranger 1
I really, really wanted the 1000m/s speed while cloaked.


CCP, I know you are trying to find a direction that will make people happy and create a specific role for SB at the same time, but I hate this.

Don't kid yourself. We're FAR from happy.

The unexpected happened (to me anyway) and cov ops cloak stepped into the arena, changing everything, along with 30second "you must die because you decloaked" delay Laughing.

I'm willing to digest this and give it number of DAYS to try out with scenarios I have seen in TQ myself. I'm willing to try to think outside of the box, what this approach could do (as I still don't buy anti-BS concept, NOT with these volley damages, not without dramatic damage bonuses). But I will try to be as open as I can...

I have no real idea if this bird will be a Dodo or will it soar, tbh.

Posted - 2009.03.30 13:53:00 - [11]

Originally by: Vigaz
Can you explain me why someone should fly this new ship?

Cheaper solution for same role:
Torp Raven with cloak, fitted with active tank and a sensor booster in the mid.

Well... you shouldn't. As I see it, minds are fixed into 0.0, where the cov ops cloak and the smaller size of the ship usually give more survivability compared to raven - especially on the move in hostile territory.

I hope this concept evolves still somehow to address exactly what you brought up. Since SB's don't tackle either, the comparison for surprise DPS between SB and a Raven is correct.

Perhaps something like +200% damage, -75% RoF finally giving some substance to volley damage?

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:56:00 - [12]

Killed a good ship...
/me spits

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.30 13:56:00 - [13]

Originally by: Ranger 1
I really, really wanted the 1000m/s speed while cloaked.

It is possible that the torpedo explosion velocity could be exchanged for cloaked velocity bonus. Certainly not ruling such an idea out for now though we are bordering on a ship which will be too much winsauce soon. Will see how things pan out so watch this space.

Kyoko Sakoda
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:56:00 - [14]

While I still believe there should be two types of bombers, I think a recalibration penalty makes perfect sense -- interceptors, EAFs, and Recons end up making good escorts for vulnerable bombers -- and will buff these ships into usefulness.

Thumbs up.

Eka Lawrencia
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:57:00 - [15]

Edited by: Eka Lawrencia on 30/03/2009 14:09:20
Be careful what you wish for, you might well get it.

30 seconds reactivation delay and no cloaked speed bonus will in general make this a one-shot affair: Fire and warp out. They will also have difficulty to get into position against smaller ships, which would have been easy with added speed.

The real deadliness of the bomber rested on three attributes:

- Cloaked speed enhances positioning, which in turn makes bomber EW effective

- No targeting delay and quick recloak, meaning that large ships won't be able to achieve lock in time.

- Missiles deal damage after recloak.

As has been said before, the advantage of covops cloaks on bombers is a dubious one. The presence of bombers in system can always be ascertained by having scouts at gates and general intel in surrounding systems. They also show up on scanner for a short time.

This makes the covops cloak only half as good as many seem to believe. The intel systems in 0.0 will pretty much always find what you fly before you arrive. And a single kill will give the game away for everybody else.

Please reconsider.

Kyoko Sakoda
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:58:00 - [16]

Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 30/03/2009 13:59:09

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
It is possible that the torpedo explosion velocity could be exchanged for cloaked velocity bonus.

I am not for or against a cloaked velocity bonus but do consider the fact that with a web on a target from an interceptor an explosion velocity bonus shouldn't absolutely be necessary.

Originally by: Eka Lawrencia
They will also have difficulty to get into position against smaller ships

Yes, because its role is as a bomber, not a frigate killer.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:05:00 - [17]

Its importent to remember that this ship is not a solo pwn ship. It is and should be a glass cannon. What makes it viable is that it is a supprise addition in dps in gangs.

Thats why I would want a flight time bonus as well as vlicoty bonus to torps to give more range, and thus more sruvivability.

Eka Lawrencia
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:11:00 - [18]

Edited by: Eka Lawrencia on 30/03/2009 14:19:46
Edited by: Eka Lawrencia on 30/03/2009 14:16:38
Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda

Originally by: Eka Lawrencia
They will also have difficulty to get into position against smaller ships

Yes, because its role is as a bomber, not a frigate killer.

With smaller ships, I mean cruisers, which must be in the target selection of bombers because they are so many of them.

I am also never talking about solo bombers. Covops cloaks don't add survivability. I can't count how often I was caught in bubbles and escaped with the added cloaked speed. Now you have to fit a speed mod, which negates other options. Covops don't surprise anyone except in w-space, and there you probably end up in some gas cloud that decloaks you anyway.

Please reconsider. A couple of seconds you can stop them from locking or bumping you, but not 30 seconds.

Kyoko Sakoda
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:28:00 - [19]

I don't see why bombers should be very effective against cruisers. I've always considered that they should be best versus BCs and BS.

And survivability isn't the issue. The element of surprise is. Bombers should NOT be survivable without proper escort. If you see a bunch of people in local and can't see them on scan then you can deduce they are all perhaps covert ops cloaked. But you don't know what they're fielding.

Gas clouds and local intel are a completely separate issue from the usefulness of bomber bonuses.

something somethingdark
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:30:00 - [20]


Or in more detail
please dont fix whats barely broken
If you are so keen on having a Torpedobomber do the folowing :

1) Copy paste the current stealth bomber model
2) Fiddle some deeper stats arround so its not too apparent that its just a copy paste
3) Give the "new" models some go faster stripes and a mean face (i want to be a panther grrr) paintjob
4) Assign them the bonuses you propose
5) Make sure the "old" stealthbomber is not outclassed in every way and still has its role
6) Unleash them on sisi and wait for feedback!

Aditional time required : 1 month if the graphics artists are swamped
Result : Nobody is anoyed, everybodys happy they get a "new" ship

Is that so amazingly hard to do ?

yani dumyat
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:32:00 - [21]

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Killed a good ship...
/me spits


Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:36:00 - [22]

What exactly is preventing them from retaining the ability to use cruise launchers?

The listed attributes would be sweet if we had a choice between cruise/siege, both for range and target types.

The narrow focus on anti-BS makes for a very limited range of engagements where another ship-class would not be better.
Allowing for cruise would broaden this to include anti-cruiser hull at the cost of lower damage output.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:38:00 - [23]

Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 30/03/2009 14:44:04
Originally by: something somethingdark

please dont fix whats barely broken

have you flown a Stealth Bomber recently? Currently it is a joke really. No strategic value, no defined role. And regular dps ship will outperform it. A sniper AF is better. A T1 frig with tackle is better, a T1 cruiser is better. At anything the SB cna currently do.

Ayame Kei
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:40:00 - [24]

The ability to warp whilst cloaked is a good thing and what was needed from the day the bombers arrived in game.

I still think Torpedoes are a bad idea as they are just too slow and the bombers will be gettign killed before they reach their targets.

30 seconds delay on the cloak is not so good 15 seconds would be better adn at least give the pilot a chance to cloak after he gets his volley off.

but considering how easy it is to kill the bombers they need a tactic that will give them some chance to survive or they will remain an also ran.

However that said I would hate them to be "uber I win machines"

Eka Lawrencia
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:40:00 - [25]

Edited by: Eka Lawrencia on 30/03/2009 14:46:01
Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
local intel are a completely separate issue from the usefulness of bomber bonuses.

It keeps you from achieving surprise. That's not a separate issue.

And even if you manage surprise, after the first kill* it is gone anyway. No change to the current bomber, except then you can't recloak and are a snail cloaked.

*either in the targeted gang or anywhere in its intel system.

Posted - 2009.03.30 14:46:00 - [26]

Even though this is a "talk to the hand"Laughing thread , ill still get to the details.

Without range bonus and t2 launchers / t2 torps, 3x launchers best skills . You get 30km range against an immobile target and 1650 a-strike against still an immobile target.

Meaning , if target moves ; Your torps range drop greatly because of chasing the target and you get a huge speed damage reduction . So that 1650 a-strike would possibly drop to 900 thats if* the torp manages to catch target . Not to mension, that a-strike is against zero resists.

So now , our glass cannon .. sorry our "glass watergun" would hit 450 damage to a 50% resisted somewhat intelligent target , which is probably going to be only battlecruisers or battleships.

And guess what, after you deal 450 damage, you have to either GTFO or get instapopped by either drones or nereby fast locking tackler ships . Since it will be very easy to primary you then because of your very short initial assault range, that is 15km at best.

And IF* you GTFO fast, then your torp wont hit the target either lol . And you can't tacticaly repeat it because of the 30 second re-cloak delay. So much for 450 damage every 60 sec lol ("add in the get in to position and wait for the right time delay")

This is so funny, that if stealth bombers are tweaked to reflect the performance above , they will be only skill traps which people will never ever make it work but die trying a lot .

So my suggestion is , YOU CANNOT FIX THIS SHIP WITH ONE OR TWO SMALL TWEAKS , or changing ship bonus.

I suggest, from slot count to base speed , to launcher slots and ship bonuses .
Redesign the ship and aim to make it better than it was before , changing couple values will only create a worthless kamikaze ship , i wouldn't call this a "new role".

Posted - 2009.03.30 14:53:00 - [27]

Manticore has the worst Scan resolution
Manticore has the worst agility
Manticore has the worst speed
Manticore has the worst sig radius
Manticore has the worst damage type -> Kin (New role target is a BS)
Manticore has the best targetting range

Manticore and Nemesis cannot fit MWD with any BCU (Purifier and Hound can fit 2x BCU T2 and a MWD T2 without rigs or implants)

With the OP proposal the max range for torps will be 45km, the only plus for a manticore is the 70km targetting range (where Hound has the worst range -> 50Km) , Could you please check all the attributes of those ships to have a more balanced situation?

What about a bigger bonus for Torp velocity to counter the drowback of the Manticore and Nemesis (2nd worst SB)?

Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:06:00 - [28]

Edited by: Dallenn on 30/03/2009 15:13:18
Originally by: Ranger 1
I really, really wanted the 1000m/s speed while cloaked.

I hope people are happy. They have their covert ops cloak now which requires no brain to use, and have gotten rid of potentially the most unique tactical advantage given to a ship in this game in exchange.

My feelings are pretty mixed WRT bombers, but I lean this way too. The speed change would make bombers more useful in one of their niches - providing a quick warp-in point and thus making the enemy very uneasy whenever they appear.

A covert ops cloak would make them slightly easier to use, because the enemy is less prepared. But it'd also make them a bit too good in scouting as well, they'd be just like recons and covops proper. Some people might replace these with the bomber for scouting role. Admittedly it'd be good if somebody flies bombers, but I fear a covops cloak might make the bombers overpowered, or then the combat capability would have to be so badly nerfed they'd (still) only be useful as a scout.

What's wrong with bombers might just be the whole glass cannon concept. A ship needs to be versatile and robust to be flown in PvP. If you need 10 buddies that are max-skilled in the ship and willing to work hours to set up a trap for the ship to be viable, it just won't be flown. If you want people to fly bombers, they need to have a profile of mobility, survivability, affordability and effective threat to fit into a mixed gang. There needs to be at least some options for solo PvP, and preferably PvE as well. The problem is that there is a plenty of ships that are superior to bombers in all of these respects, yet bombers are extremely fragile, making them a non-option to all but the die-hard bomber fans amongst the PvP crowds.

The suggested changes would make the bomber even more a niche ship than it is currently. Current bombers can deal missile damage to pretty much all targets; switching to torpedos would make them useful only against a very limited set of targets. What if the enemy is flying HACs and lighter ships? Bombers would be almost totally useless.

Has CCP really exhausted the balance space for the bombers' current general role and equipment? Don't really think so - the speed change would be worth testing, for once. Why not introduce a greater variety of bombs: t2, faction... even t3? Have high-intensity bombs with small radius of effect for taking out battleships, precision cluster bombs for taking out frigate swarms, etc. How about a special cloaking device that can only be activated in warp, thus you will arrive cloaked but cannot recloak in the battle? A module that boosts your cloaked velocity +400% but kills your maneuverability, so you can close into combat range but can't stalk MWDing t2 frigates?

What I'd work with is increasing survivability and versatility. There are a lot of simple options: more HP, more PG, more slots, higher speed/agility, smaller sig radius etc. If bombers could tank weaker interceptors, outrange AFs, survive bursts of fire from heavier ships (not counting close range fits or high-damage snipers), etc they could excel in general roles like fending off enemy frigates and recons. Bombers are frigate class vessels, so they don't need to be able to kill battleships (well maybe with expensive bombs), but they could work wonders as a unique, complementary ship class that has both fighting and scouting abilities.

Posted - 2009.03.30 15:06:00 - [29]

To those that are worrying about the SB's ability to be a sustained damage dealer, you are flying them wrong. The whole idea is line up your target between your position and a warp out point and approach. When in range, decloak, target, fire, wait for impact, and then insta warp (you will already be at speed).

The natural counters to this are bubbles (for those in 0.0) and fast locking inty's close enough to tackle you before you warp out. If those conditions are present, it should modify your decision to engage. Thats what cloaks are for; they are not defensive measures, they are engagement decision modifiers.

The cov-ops cloak is a mixed bag. Its negatives nullify the benefits. With the current cloaked speed bonus, getting setup on a bombing run (as described above) was easier, but getting on the field of battle was not. This required proper preparation of the battlefield (an assortment of off grid bookmarks). The cov-ops cloak eliminates the need for the off grid bm's, but the loss of the cloaked speed bonus (coupled with the new shorter range weapon system) hampers the SB's ability to set up a proper run in time to be effectual. The cloaking delay is meaningless if SB's are used properly, as you will warp off before needing to cloak, anyway.

The torp velocity bonus is inline with the SB's proper use (faster time for weapons delivery means the faster you warp off).

I fight in the mega-fleet battles in 0.0, where lag reigns supreme. With the "new" lag, navigation is minimally degraded, while module activation (or rather reactivation) is greatly degraded. Under those conditions, the alpha strike and warp out role of SB's in enhanced, though not enough to be a viable weapons platform in a real fleet battle.

I cannot recall if it has been suggested, but enhancing the use of bombs would make it a much more viable heavy damage dealer. I would simply allow the use of three bomb launchers on an SB, and consider targeted versions of bombs, with higher damage. Alternately, consider the use of citadel torpedos with the proper boni to make them viable against BS. This would enhance the alpha strike role, while minimizing the ability for sustained DPS. Keep the size of bombs the same; this would make SB pilots focus on setting up proper runs and reward good judgement on engagement decisions. It would also give them a more viable addition to large fleet battles. Bombs increase the survivablity of SB pilots who set things up properly, as they do not need to wait around for weapons impact.

I am glad CCP is looking into the SB concept, as it is truly one of the few interesting ships left to fly in this game.

Vall Kor
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:10:00 - [30]

Edited by: Vall Kor on 30/03/2009 15:23:09
I guess 13 pages of people against the change wasn't enough.

Wow way to not listen to the SB pilots. Unless 2 SBs can solopwn a battle ship in one volley this change is ******ed, please allow us to either fit cruise OR torps, don't limit us to one. Not all of us fight battle ships on a normal basis......Most of the ships I run up against are BCs and below, will I still be able to 2-3 volley those? If not then this change will force me to shelve my bomber.

EDIT: and LOL at the "anti-bs" role.... I'd rather BS be anti-bs. The DPS lost because you wanted to bring SBs is a reason NOT to bring SBs. Cruises OR torps, not just torps.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (57)

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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only