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: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

Space Wanderer
Posted - 2009.04.02 12:41:00 - [511]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Its anti-large ship but cannot kill them in a few volleys WTF!

This is intended and we hope the majority of you understand why. Having a ship that can one volley a battleship goes to very dark and horrible places quickly. The bomber when combined with other ships in a gang becomes an incredible provider of damage and that is where its focus is at.


I perfectly understand the reason for this. However the need to have support ships conflicts with its covop role. You can't surprise ships if you are warping with support, and you can't destroy a surprised target if you warp alone. It seems a lose-lose proposition. Or have I missed something?

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 12:42:00 - [512]
 

Originally by: RedSplat


Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?




this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

With this, like any other balancing, we will see how it plays out and continue to look at tweaking the ships until we have the right overall balance.

Quote:

Also,

BOMBS

Why
arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?

Hint: they dont curently.


Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.


RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 12:58:00 - [513]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.




I am intrigued, what exactly is so OP about allowing Lowsec bomb use?

As i see matters,

If anything bombs would be less effective in Lowsec than they currently are in 0.0, the reason being that intended targets can more readily warp out when a slow moving bomb appears on the field (the lack of Hictor Bubbles) and the fact that Lowsec (specifically FW areas) Fleets tend to have a more diverse range of ships-

Bombs only do full damage to large targets, are currently still prohibitedly expensive and in addition require a suicide run on the part of the SB.

It is easy for frigates to warp out when a bomb appears on grid, before it hits- frigates are hypothetically the only ship class bar detroyers actually at risk of being instapopped by a bomb; assuming 0 resists, not moving etc...

A SB with a covops cloak would surely more readily get in a position to use bombs more effectively, but with the proposed 30 sec cloaking cooldown would be even more vulnerable following bomb launcher use than currently

Suiciding a T2 frigate against an enemy fleet in lowsec by using bombs in thier current incarnation still represents an overwhelming investment in isk for a minimal return in damage dealt.

So am am wondering what the balancers, movers and shakers think is so OP about lowsec bomb use?

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:05:00 - [514]
 

Just messed around on sisi. I dunno. It's good. However being so damn close is almost silly. At the same time. The smaller stuff just cant be broken it seems. I was hitting a zealot for like 200dmg / volley.


Quote:
this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

It really isnt. Unless they goto low sec or something. Then again that'd just be an anti-pirate boost. So it's all good.

Quote:
Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.

Nobody uses them in 0.0. Nobody will use them in low sec.

High sec is the place you shouldnt launch em. Imagine jita 4/4 with bombs allowed. Fit like 50 manticores into neut orca. Bring -10 pirates to jita. Launch ship. Fit. BOOM.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:20:00 - [515]
 

Originally by: Jason Edwards
Imagine jita 4/4 with bombs allowed. Fit like 50 manticores into neut orca. Bring -10 pirates to jita. Launch ship. Fit. BOOM.


NO.

Unless your aim is just to wind people up this is a terrible way of suicide ganking.

-SB's are expensive and not insurable
-Bombs are expensive
-Bombs destroy eachother; with resists to thier damage type you can still only drop 4-5 bombs depending on skilllevel at once before the blasts start to wipe out other bombs on grid.

Please dont muddy the issue, ideally i would like to see Bomb use allowed everywhere, with the apropriate concord response of course.

I have never understood the reasoning behind Bombs being a 0.0 only item.

retro mike
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:44:00 - [516]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Responding to the most frequent suggestions in the last few pages:

Make a separate bomber class for this new role

However we feel that this approach would not work besides being the "path of least resistance". There are some of you who have found a role and strategy that works for you and have dedicated time to specialising in that role and are rightfully critical of having that altered to a new role requiring a change of strategy.

However we believe the vast majority of pilots would and will prefer the new role and the handful who are left preferring the old role in a ship that as we originally stated had missed our original intention for the bomber class would be left happy but we would have a ship class rarely used and a victim of legacy.

It is much better to evolve the original ships role to where it has a better place and part to play in the game than leave a relic ship class that makes little sense to most even if the transition is a painful one, it is a much preferred approach for us.



well nobody can say we didnt try

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:55:00 - [517]
 

Edited by: DNSBLACK on 02/04/2009 17:39:54
4 hours of testing last night.

a. If this is the direction you are intending this ship to go then you nailed it.

b. Effective vs BC and above. Cruiser and below you will more then likly not have the same success as in the past.

Conclusion: I would like the explosion radious of the torp to be a little smaller. If you use a 30 cov cloak 30 timer is fine. If the bomber puts a proto or tech 2 cloak then no delay. Iam happy with the way the bombers are on SISI now. You nailed your niche role as far as i can see and these changes would be fun if to say the least.

Black





Nareg Maxence
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:12:00 - [518]
 

May I suggest something radical? Now comparing EVE with RL or Trek or whatever is not usually kosher but hear me out before you flame.

What is a bomber? Its a plane that bombs hangars, buildings and infrastructure?

Now it would seem to me that together with the new black ops changes, that it would be natural to use that as an inspiration for the SB role. A ship for nuking key starbase structures.

Give it some sort of bonus so that it is good at shooting starbase structures (targets that are standing still?) fast and getting out unseen. Take a small group and bridge it into a cyno-jammed system and give it a good chance of taking this key structure out quickly, given enough numbers.

Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:13:00 - [519]
 

Quote:
Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.


Well to most extent , I believe the vast majority of people see the cost as the main problem.

from my point of view(small scale to large scale pvp) the main problems are:

time/cloaking/warp restriction - deploy and wait for you quick and swift death
Amount restriction - 7 is really low , increase to 10

Atm most bs will survive a bomb strike but it should be able to put a dent on large bs fleet that could turn the tide of a battle...if the bs fleet are idiot all on the same 15k grid...)

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:16:00 - [520]
 

After few tests:

SB and torps aren't so bad after all.
Using Javellin torps +1 rig I was able to shoot @ 65km (I didnt have time to check max range but I guess it can be better).

BTW I think the damage bonus should be checked. Is It possible to split it?
last sisi check was 20% per level of racial damage bonus (it means 100% damage bonus for racial).


Change:
10% per level torp damage
10% per level racial damage

It's sound a bit unfair to me. In TQ SBs have a 5% dmg per level to all cruise missiles and 5% racial damage per level).

Interghast
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:20:00 - [521]
 

So anyone who has found a use for the cruise bomber (such as anti-falcon work) is shafted because they found a use for a ship that other people whined was broken...

Meanwhile the falcon gets to keep its 200km range (aside: it should have been brought in to 150km) and we bomber pilots get to go play in close range where the vagabonds lurk along with other ships able to tank the torp damage and pop a 40-50mil papertank frig.

Thanks for that.

As mentioned previously we now have to train up torps, get torp ammo and launchers out to where our bombers are and buy another cloak at reasonable expense.

Thanks for that too.

I really don't see how it can be justified to change the role of a ship removing most of the options it currently has and simply claim it was always supposed to be like that and we've been using it wrongly.
But I'm wasting my time and am now going to be classed as a whiner for trying to provide intelligent and researched feedback to the devs.

All we asked for was choice and all we get is one way or the highway.

Thanks for that.

Will I adapt to the new bomber? I've got no choice if I want to make use of the hulls I have out in deep 0.0, assuming I can get the fittings. I'm sure in a month you'll be able to chalk up the changes as a huge success as 100% of bomber pilots fit torps. At least until the BS pilots start complaining that 30 bombers can alpha strike a 3 plated and 3 trimarked BS - isn't ganking fun?

Meanwhile bombs are still being ignored.

TL:DR
Yes I've tried the changes on sisi
Yes torp bombers do good damage against a BS
Yes warping cloaked is nice
No they don't last long against drones

I still think there is a role for a longer range cruise bomber able to harrass support even if it can't instapop inties etc like some people think they should be able to. However it is too much effort for CCP to balance fittings for torps and cruise on one hull, or to fix bombs.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 14:21:00 - [522]
 

Originally by: RedSplat

I am intrigued, what exactly is so OP about allowing Lowsec bomb use?



Low sec is a different playground with different rules despite smartbombs being allowed as the only area effect weapon. Adding bombs to that list whilst it could open up some interesting gameplay can easily topple the balance between strategies and tactics for survival for example for different levels of players.

We carefully have not allowed many of the things allowed in null sec to deliberately create areas of space where different ships and tactics are required but also where people can slowly ease themselves into the advanced and high level gameplay of null sec with bubbles and doomsdays.

It is not a perfect ambience and transition but we would still like to maintain different rule sets between the different playgrounds.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:23:00 - [523]
 

Originally by: Nareg Maxence

Give it some sort of bonus so that it is good at shooting starbase structures (targets that are standing still?) fast and getting out unseen. Take a small group and bridge it into a cyno-jammed system and give it a good chance of taking this key structure out quickly, given enough numbers.


New bomb type:

Targeted point-damage bunker busters, doing extreme damage to a single target, with an explosion radius (or other quality) that means they are effective vs' Capitals and Towers/Pos mods only.

Or simply have said bombs only effecting Towers/tower mods if balancing the damage so a SB fleet cant alpha a capital is difficult. Laughing

Balance them such that say 5 SB's could one volley a Cynojammer with this bomb type, but make the volume of the ammunition such that the SB cargohold cant carry them: so they must be loaded in station or from a corp hangar/ship maintenance bay/ whatever and once the SB has fired this bomb it has to 'return to base' to reload.


Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:29:00 - [524]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: RedSplat


Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?




this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

With this, like any other balancing, we will see how it plays out and continue to look at tweaking the ships until we have the right overall balance.

Quote:

Also,

BOMBS

Why
arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?

Hint: they dont curently.


Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.




The damage looks good, but you guys are going to have to add some sort of tank, I tried AB sig tanking a Tempest, Slep and Mega and they were able to hit me effortlessly at 20KM. The 30 second recloak got me killed more than once, where I was not targeted yet and had to chosse to warp away and do nothing or die (I choose to die since it is a test server).

A couple of things need to be adjusted:

More EHP
Higher base speed
Shorter decloak range (1km)
No or much, much shorter recloak timer.
More PG/CPU for EW (I consider points webs EW) or tank options.


All in all it is not the best change the devs could have done for the SB, and a lot of people will stop using them because of the price and no tank. In a small wolf pack they will be somewhat deadly. But, I'd never consider these BS killers until they get the alpha much higher than it currently is.



Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:37:00 - [525]
 

What about warping out when you dropped your load? Ever considered doing this?

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:41:00 - [526]
 

Edited by: RedSplat on 02/04/2009 14:51:46
Edited by: RedSplat on 02/04/2009 14:48:15
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Low sec is a different playground with different rules despite smartbombs being allowed as the only area effect weapon. Adding bombs to that list whilst it could open up some interesting gameplay can easily topple the balance between strategies and tactics for survival for example for different levels of players.

We carefully have not allowed many of the things allowed in null sec to deliberately create areas of space where different ships and tactics are required but also where people can slowly ease themselves into the advanced and high level gameplay of null sec with bubbles and doomsdays.

It is not a perfect ambience and transition but we would still like to maintain different rule sets between the different playgrounds.



I have to say i just flat out disagree with some aspects of that reasoning. Wink

I live in Lowsec. When i go to 0.0 its to kill things.

Bombs are an anti blob weapon yes? Or are at least intended as such.

I would love for all the Devs to be forced to join corps that live in Lowsec for a week and participate in ops and live there. It seems to be a consistent disconnect between those of us that live in Lowsec and what Devs seem to think Lowsec is like.

Lowsec is 0.0 without Doomsday use, certain types of POS setups, Hictor bubbles and other analogues and the addition of Gateguns. Thats about it really, the Blob is ubiquitous, capitals and capital use is commonplace and you have powerfull conglomerates of players controlling systems.

In many respects the differences between lowsec and 0.0 are nedglidgeable as far as standard gameplay is concerned; i do not count multi billion isk ships with grid-killing weapons 'standard'.

It seems a common theme that CCp considers Lowsec '0.0 with the training wheels on'. It is not. Lowsec is another entity entirely to 0.0 and equally as dangerous; in many aspects considerably more so than 0.0.

Yet to return to a previous point: Blob warfare is dominant in lowsec.

Please give us the tools to break up those massed fleets, in the form of bomb use, 0.0 has the doomsday or the bomb (which is not used, this should tell you the extent to which they were pre-nerf'd). Lowsec has only the option of a larger fleet.

Make Lowsec the area where bomb use finds it niche, promoting smaller gang warfare with varied fleets, 'cause bombs sure as hell dont have an effective role in 0.0

EDIT: Standard caveats and exceptions apply, while i can think of hypothetical situations for bomb use in 0.0 i have never seen, nor really heard of such occurring (the only anaecdotal story i have heard was two SB's suiciding a swarm of fighters off a pos and wiping them out with bombs).

If someone has flown with an alliance FC in 0.0 that WANTS SB's in fleet i would love to hear that story.


Anderling
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:42:00 - [527]
 

I am primarily concerned with the long recloak timer. I have had some moderate successes hitting frigs close by with a target painter, two webs, and sensor booster. Most of my successes were thanks to being able to recloak soon enough to stay out of the way of the big damage dealers. Being hunted down by interceptors and droneboats scooping the scene was all part of the fun. As was warping in and cloaking while hoping nobody had seen you.

It's much more efficient to recloak after shooting, but it doesn't guarantee your survival. It would turn Stealth Bombers into one-shot isk-burners. I'd say, ditch the Covops cloak. You could even keep the torps, even though I have put masses of time into training for Cruise Missiles. Just don't take away what makes Stealth Bombers worth flying.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:47:00 - [528]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus
What about warping out when you dropped your load? Ever considered doing this?


You have to wait until the missiles hit (from outside of point range so lets say +27 km) and hope that your target doesnt spot you decloaking and the missiles en route and deploy light drones or sentrys (?).

Sure you can then warp out (provided you survive the drones, which is possible), but a single volley from a single SB isnt going to worry anything.

Could a gang do this? Sure. I am certain people WILL do this, combined with Sd's scripted for scan res.

But bear in mind this means you need an even larger gang of SB's to kill a BS target, indeed may not be able to if he active tanks unless your gang size is huge

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:48:00 - [529]
 

Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 02/04/2009 14:50:30
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: RedSplat


Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?




this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

With this, like any other balancing, we will see how it plays out and continue to look at tweaking the ships until we have the right overall balance.

Quote:

Also,

BOMBS

Why
arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?

Hint: they dont curently.


Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.




emm where is the problem here? is you take 4-5 torp ravens and give them those 7-10 sec this will take the ravens will indeed kill the ship even faster, a full fitted sb cost around 40 mill (which is NOT insurable) a raven full fitted have around 20-30 mill lost in isk when it gets destroyid.
1 raven will instant pop a SB 1 hit, you need 8-10 sb's to instant bob 1 raven, so tell me again where is the problem?

now for the bombs:
two ways here either keep the "you gotta be killed to make this happen" which means you need to seriously increase their dmg, but this would imbalance alot of things.
or "you can hit from far away" this means giving the bombs a 40-50 km range and a 2-5 sec time before impact, this would fix it too.. and at the same time let BOTH missiles and bombs do dmg even if the ship is not on the grid anymore anything else doesn't make sense and make it very imbalanced to use missiles/bombs

Seishomaru
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:57:00 - [530]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Batolemaeus
What about warping out when you dropped your load? Ever considered doing this?


You have to wait until the missiles hit (from outside of point range so lets say +27 km) and hope that your target doesnt spot you decloaking and the missiles en route and deploy light drones or sentrys (?).

Sure you can then warp out (provided you survive the drones, which is possible), but a single volley from a single SB isnt going to worry anything.

Could a gang do this? Sure. I am certain people WILL do this, combined with Sd's scripted for scan res.

But bear in mind this means you need an even larger gang of SB's to kill a BS target, indeed may not be able to if he active tanks unless your gang size is huge


that is the main reason why I always open fire (And will continue to do so) from 4-5 km only with SB after decloak. Lock fire count to 2 warp.....

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:58:00 - [531]
 

the reactivation time on cov ups are too long, since moving through systems will be impossible since you have to decloack at each gate, make the timer 15 sec that will be enough for anything in combat to wipe you and low enough to recloack at each jump

Murashu
Liberal Frontier Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:20:00 - [532]
 

I just heard about these proposed changes to my beloved SB and although I welcome some of the ideas, I fear the major changes will hinder how I use my Hound. It sounds like they are really upping the amount of alpha damage done to large targets at the expense of survivability. The SB was a glass cannon with mediocre damage before but if you make it a short range bomber with the 30 second cloaking penalty it's going to have even less survivability. With the cruise missiles it is sometimes possible to one volley frigates that aren't moving at warp speed but with these changes it sounds like any fast moving ship will be totally immune to SB damage.

My friends and I fly frigates/cruisers so we rarely go up against BC/BS fleets. The proposed changes sound like I'll no longer have a purpose to fly the Hound if I can't even hit a cruiser or frigate because my missiles are so slow and short ranged that they can just move away from them.

I'll try out the changes on sisi when it goes live though before I cry too much. I'd rather see a damage bonus to cruise missiles, cheaper bomb costs and remove the 0.0 restriction on bombs. Laughing

Kumq uat
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:24:00 - [533]
 

The problem is I use my bombers for anti miner/hauler work and TBH this torp config is worse than the cruise config. I thought it would be better but my testing shows I need 4 volleys to take out a damn Mackinaw where as I required three of cruises. Really need to be looked at.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:25:00 - [534]
 

What was wrong with stelth bombers that required fixing ?

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:35:00 - [535]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Captain Vampire
Great feedback Chronotis, looking forward to flying these ships on TQ in my favorite small roaming gang. Definitely a buff for recon gangs. Tbh, I am a bit afraid that this covert ops cloak combined with delayed local in WH will make these ships a bit OPed even in the right situations..


They will still have a smaller engagement envelop than say a Pilgrim, put out less DPS (?) and be FAR easier to kill.

Oh by the way, WH space is meant to be dangerous.


A Pilgrims DPS is around 250 - 300dps dependant upon skills and the target. It engagement range is about 10 - 15km in order to maximise its neuts / nos and sustain the cap need of its EW and any active tank.

That and we're talking about a frigate here - damn right it should be easier to kill.

C.


kessah
Blood Blind
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:42:00 - [536]
 

My personal feeling is that is an EXTREME amount of dps for such a small ship and agaisnt primarily a ship class that its already pretty good agaisnt 'Battleships' 500 dps with rage torps is nuts a gang of 5 with the ability to cloak, no lock delay & avoid fire from the Battleship, its abit much tbh.

It takes alot of emphasis off larger classes with the kinds of dps your proposing. 3x rage torp spewing SB's will break any battleship tank with resonable fitting costs.

I worried is all & drones wont cut it with the ranges they are proposing Confused

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:42:00 - [537]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: RedSplat


That and we're talking about a frigate here - damn right it should be easier to kill.

C.




My point was that the existence of ships like the Pilgrim makes claims that the SB would be OP with a Covops cloak a little odd.

Whats a Geddon more frightened of, the new SB or a Pilgrim?

Devasatation
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:48:00 - [538]
 

Despite what Chronotis has said regarding this matter, I still think that splitting the bombers up is the way to go.

An updated version of the current bomber that specialises in popping frigates and destroyers would be used by many players. I know that I'd use it for Factional Warfare plexes.
The current bombers need looking at though. Giving them a large explosion velocity bonus instead of a damage bonus would allow them to really hurt small targets, but not be much of a threat to larger targets, which the new bomber would be used for.

The new bomber idea has merit and looks like it is well designed, however I cant really see myself or many other people I know using it for anything other than a novelty.

Please split up the bombers, it makes sense and pleases everyone.



Fzhal
Caldari
Retribution. Inc.
E-P-O-C-H
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:59:00 - [539]
 

Edited by: Fzhal on 02/04/2009 16:54:45
Edited by: Fzhal on 02/04/2009 16:01:49
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: RedSplat


Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?




this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

With this, like any other balancing, we will see how it plays out and continue to look at tweaking the ships until we have the right overall balance.

Quote:

Also,

BOMBS

Why
arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?

Hint: they dont curently.


Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.




You may say that but I disagree. Just look at the cost of the target BS, How about a raven.
86mil Raven, 10.2mil for 6 Siege Launcher II, 2.1mil for 3 BCS II, 5.2mil for 4 Large Shield Extenders II, 5.2 Mil for 2 Invul Field II, 2.4mil for 2 Medium Neut II. Total Cost is 112mil. Then you pay 32 mil for insurance and only end up losing 10 Mil if you lose the ship. (From memory but I think I am real close on this number)

Now the cost of the Stealth Bombers. Does 30 mil each sound about right? Multiply that times 5 and you have 150 Mil for 5 ships and 5 pilots. Insurance on these things is a joke so we'll say that they'd get back a conservative total of 15 mil total. Meaning if these pop the group loses a total of 75mil.

So lets say 5 Stealth Bomber Pilots versus a group of 5 in various ships. If they stuck around for a second volley then the SB group would lose 2-3 bombers (27 mil per player) to take out a Raven.

With the Stealth Bomber's low agility this still makes a bomber less effective than 5 cruisers doing 250-300 DPS.


On a seperate note.

My suggestion is to keep with the torpedoes but add in some utility.
Why not give them a bonus on sensor dampeners or ECM? I think Dampeners would be better though because you could use javelins and stay out of range of most BS's. Say 2 Dampeners with range scripts could get a normal BS's targeting range down to 30 KM?

With ranged damps a lone Stealth bomber with javelins could sit at range and make a BS run away, but if it stayed in close it would be eaten by drones and whatnot. But then you add in the gang element. A Bomber and Inty can take out a BS, but if it was 2 on 2 then it would be a rough fight for both gangs.

Actually I like this idea a lot! Give Stealth Bombers a Dampener bonus along with the Torpedo bonus!

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:04:00 - [540]
 

Originally by: Fzhal
Edited by: Fzhal on 02/04/2009 16:01:49
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: RedSplat


Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?




this is the biggest concern we have that the volley damage scales every quickly and could be overpowered in many scenarios when combined with other factors.

With this, like any other balancing, we will see how it plays out and continue to look at tweaking the ships until we have the right overall balance.

Quote:

Also,

BOMBS

Why
arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?

Hint: they dont curently.


Bombs require much more time to figure out the best possible changes to these which might be as simple as reducing the cost however their special case application (in null sec and against a group of targets) requires consideration. The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.




You may say that but I disagree. Just look at the cost of the target BS, How about a raven.
86mil Raven, 10.2mil for 6 Siege Launcher II, 2.1mil for 3 BCS II, 5.2mil for 4 Large Shield Extenders II, 5.2 Mil for 2 Invul Field II, 2.4mil for 2 Medium Neut II. Total Cost is 112mil. Then you pay 32 mil for insurance and only end up losing 10 Mil if you lose the ship. (From memory but I think I am real close on this number)

Now the cost of the Stealth Bombers. Does 30 mil each sound about right? Multiply that times 5 and you have 150 Mil for 5 ships and 5 pilots. Insurance on these things is a joke so we'll say that they'd get back a conservative total of 15 mil total. Meaning if these pop the group loses a total of 75mil.

So lets say 5 Stealth Bomber Pilots versus a group of 5 in various ships. If they stuck around for a second volley then the SB group would lose 2-3 bombers (27 mil per player) to take out a Raven.

With the Stealth Bomber's low agility this still makes a bomber less effective than 5 cruisers doing 250-300 DPS.


On a seperate note.

My suggestion is to keep with the torpedoes but add in some utility.
Why not give them a bonus on sensor dampeners or ECM? I think Dampeners would be better though because you could use javelins and stay out of range of most BS's. Say 2 Dampeners with range scripts could get a normal BS's targeting range down to 30 KM?

With ranged damps a lone Stealth bomber with javelins could sit at range and make a BS run away, but if it stayed in close it would be eaten by drones and whatnot. But then you add in the gang element. A Bomber and Inty can take out a BS, but if it was 2 on 2 then it would be a rough fight for both gangs.

Actually I like this idea a lot! Give Stealth Bombers a Dampener bonus along with the Torpedo bonus!


that is the main reason i prefer the NON COVERT cloak but with huge speed bonus. Covert ops cloak will make the ship too expensive.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : 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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only