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 : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:06:00 - [541]
 

To solve the cloak issue-

Proto type cloak = No recloak delay poor cloaked speed.

Tec 2 cloak= No cloak delay and a better cloaked speed.

Cov Cloak= 30 sec cloak dely, decent speed while cloaked, can warp cloaked.

This would give the bomber pilot some options. Your changes are really limiting the bomber options that he use to have.

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:16:00 - [542]
 

If it does pan out that the new Stealth Bomber has a lower survivability with these changes, would there be any plans to reduce the build cost? The bomber itself has always been a bit pricey for what it does, but adding a CovOps cloak makes it significantly more expensive.

Looking forward to trying this out (I didn't get a chance to jump on Sisi last night Sad). Hope my gang mates don't mind me warping out the second someone targets me, because while I could afford to lose one or two I certainly wouldn't want to. Very Happy

Zostera
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:31:00 - [543]
 

Very dissapointing set of changes.

I find it hard to imagine flying a bomber again which is a shame for such a potentially unique and fun ship to fly.

Simply adding the adding the cov-ops cloak and retaining cloaked speed would have made these perfect as part of a cov-ops gang. Since they will never be tacklers and always be weak their main defense was distance and the ability to re-cloak. Adding the cov-ops cloak would mean they could travel with recons and effectively set up an ambush using each ship type in it's own unique way. Recons for points and jamming, bombers for ranged dps. Inties would still be a threat burning out to them and the ship would be just as vulnerable but a little more useful than before.

Or

Make the bomb bay larger possibly with an "External bomb bay" mod. Decrease the activation cycle time too so several bombs can be deployed. Make sure each ship can fit speed mods to give it a chance to get away.

As it is I see the life of a bomber pilot like this.

Sneak up - decloak - launch torps - get locked by an intie - die before torps hit.

And totally pointless trying to operate in a situation where a bubble is deployed.

Completely the wrong way to change these ships, I can't imagine a fleet of them killing even 1 BS.

Sad to see them go this way.

Zos

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:36:00 - [544]
 

CCP Chronotis

1. Build 1 intresting but not effective in the role you stated.

2. Build 2 Damage out put is perfect, The options on cloaking needs looked at. Suggestion: Build 1 cloaking changes with build 2 damage out put. I know loosing the cov cloak will **** some people off but lets try it.

3. Build 3 What are you looking at ????????? Any new ideas and when will we see it. Keep responding us bomber pilots are waiting. 3 days on sisi so far and no game play is killing me but iam willing to keep testing.

By the way Iam ok with change but this statement a few pages back I disagree with.

"This is certainly a please everyone scenario and perfectly logical suggestion by many of you to not cause any unhappiness at all. 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."

But i know you are moving this direction so why fight it. The bomber as it is today is perfect and is no relic. It is the lack of planning and preperation and tactics that makes the bomber a tough ship to fly but fun once you master it. You are limiting the flexability of the current ship and I hope the change dosnt make it more of a relic.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:42:00 - [545]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 02/04/2009 17:03:00
I'm going to take a moment to touch on bombs. Although it is slightly off topic it is necessary, as these new bombers need to be balanced not only for torps but for their eventual use with bombs again.

I would seriously suggest removing the bomb damage bonus and free up that "bonus slot" for other things. This should make the balancing a bit easier to deal with assuming there is a cap to how many bonus slots you want this class of ship to have.

Either that, or switch that bonus to bomb velocity to give bombs more range. This would allow bombs to be fired from the same normal attack range of torps. Thereby offsetting the current lack of a cloaked speed bonus to get within 15km, and allow firing torps and bombs from the same range (hopefully encouraging more use of the 2 siege launcher, 1 bomb launcher configuration).

The actual damage of the bombs can be tweaked to compensate for the lack of a damage bonus, as they need to be reworked anyway... and if another class of ship is eventually developed that can use them perhaps its bonus could be to the bomb damage.

As for the bombs themselves, they could easily be expanded upon to encompass many of the better ideas presented in this thread.

Example:

1: POS Structure/Anti-Cap Bombs: These could easily be developed and balanced to give huge damage, but only to entities that have huge sig radius or are anchored.
This would facilitate the SB role hinted at as a Black Ops bridged in anti-cyno jammer ship.
These monstrous bombs would have little effect on BS size and below (or perhaps a "shaped charge" if you will, only doing damage in a very small radius), however they would be large enough that only 1 could be loaded at a time and a blockade runner might be necessary to jettison more bombs to be picked up and loaded after a couple of bombing runs were completed.
This role for the bomber would be excellent as it would require a bit of thought to the logistics to be effective, and would require active support (including clever use of HICs, DICs, and anchored bubbles) to defend against them.
Remember, in this role the SB squadron warps in cloaked, gets into position, decloaks, deploys its huge bombs, and immediately warps away.
These specialized bombs could also be hella expensive, as they would play such a critical role in Sov warfare (establishing that critical beachhead for your main cap fleet) it would be justified.

The list of other "specialized" bombs that are possible are long and distinguished. It would breath new life into Sov/fleet warfare in general, and the SB class in particular. Perhaps using this approach bombs could eventually becoming the effective "fleet dispersal" vehicle they were intended to be... and more.


As a side note, people need to remember that anything frigate sized, and often cruiser sized, is vaporized by even a single bomb "IF" they have a MWD going at the time. Primarily because bomb damage is not mitigated in the slightest by speed, and far more effective against larger a larger sig radius.

They also need to remember that bombs do damage even if the bomber has warped off grid.

Edited for ease of reading.


DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:44:00 - [546]
 

I agree about the cloak. I would love to see the ability to fit non-covert ops cloak with the zero targetting delay/zero recloak delay as it is now. Tie the 30sec recloak timer to the cov-ops only. The new torps changes are much better than the first day on SISI. One thing I think that is vitale is the 20% bonus per level to explosion velocity. This tweak made the torp much more viable but still allows smaller ships much reduced damage. The speed tanking of missiles now is absurd at best. The "Guided Missile Precision" skill is desperately needed to apply to all missiles.

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:48:00 - [547]
 

Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 02/04/2009 16:50:05
after testing a lot with a friend and testing some in public fights i find this to be the problem : forget about hitting anything smaller then bc's for decend dmg.
anything larger forget about engaging them since they will almost instant pop you and you simply do not have enough dmg to bring the ship down fast enough (not anyway near enough dmg and the sb is so big that even heavy drones hit it no prob)

edit:
in conclusion it needs some boosting to servivabillity in some form. either that or a even bigger dmg boost, but that could properbly by way overpowering it
but with resistance a raven can permatank a stealth bomber (at least for around 13minutes) and the sb can tank the drones for around 7 sekunds :P

DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:50:00 - [548]
 

Edited by: DiseL on 02/04/2009 16:50:28
BTW, we may not all agree with these bomber changes but I must admit this is the most interaction (Falcon thread also) I have ever seen by ccp regarding a game change. This is the first time I have felt they are listening and taking everyone's ideas into consideration. I hope this is how it will be handled in the future regarding all buffs/tweaks! Thanks.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:50:00 - [549]
 

Edited by: McEivalley on 02/04/2009 16:52:09
Guys, guys... I know it's a space game and should be fun and everything, but with great power comes great responsibility. To your wallet, in this case. WWII bomber pilots, especially those flying with just 1 torpedo under their belly were swarming and dying long time before they were able to take out 1 ship out of a fleet. They were defenseless vs interceptors or gunships (or close to that). Nearing the end of WWII, japan didn't even bother separating the torpedoes from the ships...

So yeah, you should be flying glass, and say "TY CCP" for letting us do this warping cloaked, moving while cloaked, putting a damage output completely disproportionate to the ship's size, and even has enough cpu for some interesting EWAR. yeah, it costs quite a bit to get such a MASSIVE weapon running and yeah, it takes some skill to keep it alive. Don't expect solo work from stealth bombers. TBH, it was all in the minds of cloak-freaks with their own notions of how the ship should work in a so cool awesome way they'll solo everything (though it didn't, and probably never will).

The sig-rad reduction would be awesome as it is more realistic when you bring the sci into this fi. I does make sense. If an interceptor or AF are around, or a specialized t2 cruiser that has a great scan res, then sure... fine... you deserve to die in the 30 seconds between cloaks.

But I don't believe that any BS or even BC should (I didn't say the couldn't) be able to lock down a stealth bomber in under 30 seconds. Ok, maybe a heavily sensor boosted BC should just make it. A 3 scales bigger ship should be able to soak some of the runs and has drones for defense. It doesn't need to lock as it shouldn't be able to use its main weapons on such a ship in time. After 30 seconds it's fair enough chance and more for the SB to finish its run and GTFO with the abilities you've bestowed on it already.

I would, however, concentrate on shoving the ship towards an alpha rather than dps role. Yes, it's fearsome when a wolf-pack decloaks and alpha something big, but that's the big thing's fault. In no navy in the world ever has a battleship went roaming alone, and if it did, it usually didn't come back. That's the way it works. If you're getting the ship going towards a support dps role than most would just fly a HAC or BCs, especially the later as they are way more cost effective, and the ship will still be very much un-used.

Sorry for the wall of text. Bottom line is:

1) Make sure that 5 or 6 of these, with a damage rig and no BCU will be able to alpha a t2 skilled BS pilot (isk wise, should be worth the same as their total loss).
2) Make sure that unless the stealth bomber is a part of a large fleet (i.e. not a wolf pack of just these) it should be glass and vulnerable to cruiser sized and below (which in essence, includes drones).
3) Lurking fast and incredible sig tank in a relatively slow speed for a frig should ensure its survivability against its natural targets (i.e. BC and above).
4) To regain some balance and focus it on its role, I would nerf its rigs calibration points to 300. That way you can expect one high damage missiles rig and maybe some other one that has no implication over any bonus the ship receives skill-wise and by roles or an astronautics rig for better positioning in grid... yet no two damage rigs.
5) Scan resolution should be increased a bit and locking range reduced a lot. Base locking range should be no more than 35km without skills. Scan resolution, however, should be upped. atm, with 3 sensor booster t2 with res scripts gets a max of 1531mm, but that means forget all your spare med slots for the ability to strike first and fast. I would recommend a base of 600mm-650mm which is more than a fair trade to its locking range.
6) I would also recommend increasing its cap size, and paying for it with # of locked targets (reduce to 3) and sensor strength (-25%), which might encourage people to start using the white noise jammers more as well.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:54:00 - [550]
 

I was just reading through the black ops thread and threw out a stealth bomber idea which might be worth discussing.

Change cynojammers to allow multiple jammers to be deployed in a system (no more than one per pos) and create a specialist bomb which doesn't do any damage but which disrupts cynojammer functionality for a short period of time (10 minutes).

Allow black ops to cyno into jammed systems and then use a coordinated stealth bomber attack to disable all the cynojammers for long enough to bring in a proper fleet and set up a beachhead.

Instead of needing crazy damage bonuses against structures to give stealth bombers a legitimate strategic role all we need is the ability to render them non-functional for a limited period.

Interghast
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:22:00 - [551]
 

Originally by: McEivalley

1) Make sure that 5 or 6 of these, with a damage rig and no BCU will be able to alpha a t2 skilled BS pilot (isk wise, should be worth the same as their total loss).


I think that level of alpha strike is way over the top. Next we'll be saying 50 bombers can alpha a carrier...
Yes that would be funny but waaay out of line.

Originally by: McEivalley

2) Make sure that unless the stealth bomber is a part of a large fleet (i.e. not a wolf pack of just these) it should be glass and vulnerable to cruiser sized and below (which in essence, includes drones).


I think that is pretty much a given, no change there other than the ludicrous recloaking delay which even the transport ships had removed.

Range tanking with damps was one of the best ways to survive in a mixed fleet with the cruise bomber. You might get away with scan res damping but you are already tight on CPU if you want to fit 2-3 BCU2 and you'll need a few painters for anything smaller than BS.


I still think CCP should give the option of torps for in your face close range alpha (but maybe not as much as people are asking for) or ranged cruise for more utility and less alpha (such as anti-falcon work which the current cruise bomber is the best thing at below a sniping bs or eagle).

I'm going to mention this point again because having seen the u-turn on the close range falcon such that it can still operate at 200km removing the ranged bomber as a counter is really daft.

If you rig a bomber it can hit out to 230km, 3 purifiers can alpha a falcon if it isn't plated. Most falcons I've seen are 3 SDA fitted with rigs which also reduce the shield capacity.

Now in most cases we haven't had 3 bombers in range of the same falcon at the same time, however even one volley will make a falcon leave the field, two wil put it nearly into structure. Even if the bomber is jammed after the missiles go they will hit (unless you are cloaked basically) but take 30 seconds to hit giving the falcon time to warp out if they are awake (thus the bomber cannot be considered overpowered in that respect).

Killing the falcons is a bonus but not the point, the point is that there is a ship that is able to get them to warp out and thus let the rest of my gang continue to fight.

The cruise bomber can also shake up a dictor into moving off a gate, again it probably won't die but the point is that he is busy with me and leaving the rest of the gang alone.

I have the ability to hit things at range, scare smaller stuff off the field, pop drones and add some ranged ewar for my gang etc. All of that goes away with these changes just so I can be one shot gank and warp out machine.

Not going to say that there are not benefits to a torp bomber (we've been discussing tactics) but to totally remove all the current uses and replace with just alpha dps is very sad.

Yes, beating a dead horse at this point, I know :P

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:34:00 - [552]
 

Originally by: Interghast
Originally by: McEivalley

1) Make sure that 5 or 6 of these, with a damage rig and no BCU will be able to alpha a t2 skilled BS pilot (isk wise, should be worth the same as their total loss).


I think that level of alpha strike is way over the top. Next we'll be saying 50 bombers can alpha a carrier...
Yes that would be funny but waaay out of line.

Originally by: McEivalley

2) Make sure that unless the stealth bomber is a part of a large fleet (i.e. not a wolf pack of just these) it should be glass and vulnerable to cruiser sized and below (which in essence, includes drones).


I think that is pretty much a given, no change there other than the ludicrous recloaking delay which even the transport ships had removed.

Range tanking with damps was one of the best ways to survive in a mixed fleet with the cruise bomber. You might get away with scan res damping but you are already tight on CPU if you want to fit 2-3 BCU2 and you'll need a few painters for anything smaller than BS.


I still think CCP should give the option of torps for in your face close range alpha (but maybe not as much as people are asking for) or ranged cruise for more utility and less alpha (such as anti-falcon work which the current cruise bomber is the best thing at below a sniping bs or eagle).

I'm going to mention this point again because having seen the u-turn on the close range falcon such that it can still operate at 200km removing the ranged bomber as a counter is really daft.

If you rig a bomber it can hit out to 230km, 3 purifiers can alpha a falcon if it isn't plated. Most falcons I've seen are 3 SDA fitted with rigs which also reduce the shield capacity.

Now in most cases we haven't had 3 bombers in range of the same falcon at the same time, however even one volley will make a falcon leave the field, two wil put it nearly into structure. Even if the bomber is jammed after the missiles go they will hit (unless you are cloaked basically) but take 30 seconds to hit giving the falcon time to warp out if they are awake (thus the bomber cannot be considered overpowered in that respect).

Killing the falcons is a bonus but not the point, the point is that there is a ship that is able to get them to warp out and thus let the rest of my gang continue to fight.

The cruise bomber can also shake up a dictor into moving off a gate, again it probably won't die but the point is that he is busy with me and leaving the rest of the gang alone.

I have the ability to hit things at range, scare smaller stuff off the field, pop drones and add some ranged ewar for my gang etc. All of that goes away with these changes just so I can be one shot gank and warp out machine.

Not going to say that there are not benefits to a torp bomber (we've been discussing tactics) but to totally remove all the current uses and replace with just alpha dps is very sad.

Yes, beating a dead horse at this point, I know :P


All of the uses you point out for the current SB have definite value. However, I think the point in this case is that such duties should not fall on the shoulders of a ship designated as a "bomber". I'm not trying to say that you and I were using it wrong, quite the opposite in fact. We made the best use of the ship as we could, it just didn't fulfill its intended design well (which is honestly a modest failure on CCPs part, no offense intended to CCP).

That being said, this change "should" open the door to a class of ship for all races that is designed to fill the harassment role that SBs found themselves filling. Not all T2 designs are out by a long shot, this role should be considered for one of them.



Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:37:00 - [553]
 

So far i've been fairly silent in this exchange. Here are my concerns.

1) Torps vs cruise: Allow for flexibility, or at least give the bombers a velocity bonus that applies ONLY to javelins to allow for at least 100km range. The survivability of bombers in many ocasions is directly tied to distance from battle. Being forced to show your hand at 30KM, and then be unable to recloak for 30s is stupid. Especially with the lower speeds that they now operate in. A single interceptor spells death for this machines now. You've turned the bomber from a great frigate roam platform, into a blob-only solution where a BS would do the same job better - again. A bomber does not have the speed, maneuverability, tank or survivability to stay on the field more than a few volleys. Much less within 30 KM of the engagement.

2) Cov Ops cloaks: The biggest advantage of the bomber was the cloaked velocity bonus and short re-cloaking delay. It allowed for moving within the field expediently and it was a great advantage for precision maneuvering. I would honestly rather keep the velocity bonus rather than the covops cloak. Especially if I have to worry about a 30km engagement window.

3) Bombs: Either allow us to target an area for deployment, or make them as before where they dropped in place and didn't move. having to "aim" with the nose of your ship in an environment that really isn't designed for precision navigation doesn't vibe well with me. Also, please allow the bombs to explode AFTER a ship has warped off or cloaked. bombing runs shouldn't have to rely on staying on the field to watch the pretty boom unnecessarily. They are supposed to be "fire and forget" aoe weapons. So why are they tied to the presence of the bomber on the grid?

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:45:00 - [554]
 

Originally by: Willow Whisp
So far i've been fairly silent in this exchange. Here are my concerns.

1) Torps vs cruise: Allow for flexibility, or at least give the bombers a velocity bonus that applies ONLY to javelins to allow for at least 100km range. The survivability of bombers in many ocasions is directly tied to distance from battle. Being forced to show your hand at 30KM, and then be unable to recloak for 30s is stupid. Especially with the lower speeds that they now operate in. A single interceptor spells death for this machines now. You've turned the bomber from a great frigate roam platform, into a blob-only solution where a BS would do the same job better - again. A bomber does not have the speed, maneuverability, tank or survivability to stay on the field more than a few volleys. Much less within 30 KM of the engagement.

2) Cov Ops cloaks: The biggest advantage of the bomber was the cloaked velocity bonus and short re-cloaking delay. It allowed for moving within the field expediently and it was a great advantage for precision maneuvering. I would honestly rather keep the velocity bonus rather than the covops cloak. Especially if I have to worry about a 30km engagement window.

3) Bombs: Either allow us to target an area for deployment, or make them as before where they dropped in place and didn't move. having to "aim" with the nose of your ship in an environment that really isn't designed for precision navigation doesn't vibe well with me. Also, please allow the bombs to explode AFTER a ship has warped off or cloaked. bombing runs shouldn't have to rely on staying on the field to watch the pretty boom unnecessarily. They are supposed to be "fire and forget" aoe weapons. So why are they tied to the presence of the bomber on the grid?


They aren't. Your bomb will detonate after you have warped away.


Alastairon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:46:00 - [555]
 

Can we please get SOME KIND OF EXPLANATION on the 30sec recloak delay for CovOps cloaks? It makes ZERO sense to commit with a ship that can't take a hit and will ONLY cause SB pilots to have to play warp in/out games.

Chronotis, PLEASE address this and drop this requirement!

Interghast
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:47:00 - [556]
 

Originally by: Willow Whisp

3) Bombs: Either allow us to target an area for deployment, or make them as before where they dropped in place and didn't move. having to "aim" with the nose of your ship in an environment that really isn't designed for precision navigation doesn't vibe well with me.


Agree on the targeting an area, though I don't know how the ui would work.
The problem at the moment is you have to spend lots of time getting into range and make sure your target is aligned with your exit warp out or else you will be pointed before you align.

Originally by: Willow Whisp

Also, please allow the bombs to explode AFTER a ship has warped off or cloaked. bombing runs shouldn't have to rely on staying on the field to watch the pretty boom unnecessarily. They are supposed to be "fire and forget" aoe weapons. So why are they tied to the presence of the bomber on the grid?

The bomber doesn't have to be on grid for the bomb to explode and do damage, however you do need to be on grid to get damage messages in the log (other than for things that appear on the overview at range such as stations and gates.

Coordinating runs with a couple of bombers takes practice but can be a giggle. Problem is a single bomb will be lucky to kill anything awake now they appear on overview.

Fzhal
Caldari
Retribution. Inc.
E-P-O-C-H
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:54:00 - [557]
 

In the current iteration of stealth bombers the title does not fit the ship. They are more like stealth snipers of Frigates. But with the flight time of 30 seconds anything can warp out before being damaged. I think there are much better "Snipers" like the Moa etc... Use those to take out a Rook.

The new idea for bombers fits the "Bomber" role better. High damage to big targets.

One thing I don't like currently is if you have 5 Stealth bombers cloaked and sneaking up on a BS, they will decloak eachother before they get within range of launching the Torps.

I think range damps and a sig reduction would be appropriate for these new bombers. It needs some way of defending itself.

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:57:00 - [558]
 

Edited by: DNSBLACK on 02/04/2009 18:06:52
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 02/04/2009 18:00:50
To the Guy from Blade talking about bomber during WW2 LOL. The loss rate of the Avenger would have gone down to 100% but the Manhatten project guys never finished the cloaking device for it. Please stop relating this to a WW2 plane. Try a looking at it like a Greman sub or how about catch up with the time. How many B2 have been shoot down or the F-117 stealth bomber fighter during combat. Those cokmparisons are useless.

Merc101
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:59:00 - [559]
 

Well after reading everyones posted. I think that the SB's should be left alone. They serve a really good role in fleet battles as bombers or anti-falcons because of their range. Its already hard to fly Caldari solo with all the other missle nerfs, the Manticore is one of my personal favorites because if an enemy is pinned down it can get in those last few final blows. Also if you take away their range, no one is going to fly them because they are already sooo expensive and paper thin. Cloaking is essential and so is range. Leave them alone I say.

-Merc

Vaarun
Amarr
The Night Crew
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:04:00 - [560]
 

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

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.



"We're going to change the SB's to what we want regardless of your suggestions, feedback, or criticism".

If you weren't going to be responsive to input, why start this thread? We are getting good feedback form pilots on Sisi, but this has caused a lot of strife for many of us bomber pilots.

Fine.

Just let me know before you change the bombers so I don't make the mistake of going for a bomber that has cruises fitted. I'll try the new ship. Not that the current SB was easy to learn to fly, but I did. I'll do my best with the new ship and if it doesn't work, it will only cost me the time to train to Torp IV. I'm very glad now I didn't spend the time to train to Cruise V and the Specialization as I only fly Amarr ships, but I feel the frustation for those who did for the SOLE purpose of flying the SB...

I'm all for change, so long as it makes things better and doesn't ruin something that already works fine.

You devs see a bigger picture than I do, but I will miss my Purifier if I can't fly it any more with decent effect.

Take care of my baby...ugh

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 18:08:00 - [561]
 

Hey Folks,

a quick update on some changes we will test on sisi over the weekend.

Following feedback and internal playtesting we are looking at a reasonable compromise between the glass and the cannon part of the stealth bombers. Essentially we are looking to decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds coupled with a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu) to allow some easier and better fits.

The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.

In addition the agility as been fine tuned as mentioned by Nozh in his post so you should find your align and warp times much faster as well now.

This change should be on sisi after it is rebooted next (which means the changes might not appear until tomorrow)

Please keep the feedback coming!

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:15:00 - [562]
 

Edited by: DNSBLACK on 02/04/2009 18:17:30
1. Lowering the ship sig radius would be better then a a tank or resist.

2. Thanks for the response and keep it coming. iam willing to test everynight. My entire alliance depends on this being right.

3. The agility will be nice. 15 secs may allow us to sensor damp with scan res script and shoot before being locked.

4. The CPU and Grid will be intresting and nice cant wait to try some new fits. It should help with the mid slots alot and getting a full rack of Tech 2 launchers in the highs.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:18:00 - [563]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.


Please keep in mind that any scenario in which bombers are killing a battleship with one or two shots involves a HUGE advantage in numbers. While bombers might kill a bit faster than other potential 10v1 scenarios, the target has virtually no chance of surviving no matter what the 10 ships are. Please do not nerf bombers just to give people an illusion of having a chance in situations where they are guaranteed to lose.

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:
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.


I disagree, the solution is actually very simple. Reduce costs to approximately equal to interdictor bubbles (also an extremely powerful weapon), expensive enough to notice when you buy a stack of 500, but not so expensive that you hesitate to use it. Once that is done, balance the damage to be appropriate for the new cost.

As for lowsec, again, I disagree. There is absolutely no reason why bombs would be overpowered in lowsec. In fact, in the majority of lowsec scenarios (small gang or solo), bombs would be a POOR choice due to their low sustained dps. Unlike interdictor bubbles, which cause a fundamental change in PvP tactics, bombs won't really do all that much that can't be done (though somewhat less effectively) with existing smartbombs.

If bombs would be so overpowered in lowsec, remove them from the game entirely. EVE does not need toys that are only for rich 0.0 alliances.

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:22:00 - [564]
 

By the way thanks for the steath buff. If you havnt tested on SISI and are not a true bomber pilot you wont know what they changed that has help out alot. Iam afraid to post it cause they may not know they did it.

Black

Murashu
Liberal Frontier Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:23:00 - [565]
 

Someone else brought up a point that I overlooked. What is being done to fix the problem created for those of us who have cruise missile skills and no torp skills? I just made a new plan on evemon and have 23 days before I can use T2 torps and launchers...23 more days of training because some dev decided I wasn't having fun with my current SB Confused

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:26:00 - [566]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Please keep the feedback coming!



Honestly? Terrible change. The cloak delay is a non-issue. Bombers are much better with the full 20% damage and 30 second delay, especially since in most cases, you'll have to stick around for 30 seconds to get the kill anyway.

Remember, these are gang ships. Since you now have a covops cloak and are welcome in recon gangs, your recons should take care of keeping you alive. All you need is the fitting increase to allow enough tank to handle drone aggro and/or random stray shots.


Consider the case of an Arazu + 2x bomber, a fairly reasonable cloaking gang for hunting ratters/missioners/solo Pvpers/etc in hostile territory. Consider a good potential target, a Raven ratting in a belt. How does this fight go?

Arazu tackles and cripples the Raven's lock range. Bombers de-cloak and open fire from outside of the Raven's new lock range. Your ~1500 dps total isn't going to pop the Raven in under 30 seconds, so you're in it for the long fight. In this case, an extra 25% damage is MUCH more important than the ability to re-cloak immediately.

The scenario of decloak -> shoot -> recloak simply isn't very plausible in the real world. Don't nerf bomber DPS just to give people false confidence in something they simply aren't going to be able to use.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:52:00 - [567]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 02/04/2009 18:54:12
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Please keep the feedback coming!



Honestly? Terrible change. The cloak delay is a non-issue. Bombers are much better with the full 20% damage and 30 second delay, especially since in most cases, you'll have to stick around for 30 seconds to get the kill anyway.

Remember, these are gang ships. Since you now have a covops cloak and are welcome in recon gangs, your recons should take care of keeping you alive. All you need is the fitting increase to allow enough tank to handle drone aggro and/or random stray shots.


Consider the case of an Arazu + 2x bomber, a fairly reasonable cloaking gang for hunting ratters/missioners/solo Pvpers/etc in hostile territory. Consider a good potential target, a Raven ratting in a belt. How does this fight go?

Arazu tackles and cripples the Raven's lock range. Bombers de-cloak and open fire from outside of the Raven's new lock range. Your ~1500 dps total isn't going to pop the Raven in under 30 seconds, so you're in it for the long fight. In this case, an extra 25% damage is MUCH more important than the ability to re-cloak immediately.

The scenario of decloak -> shoot -> recloak simply isn't very plausible in the real world. Don't nerf bomber DPS just to give people false confidence in something they simply aren't going to be able to use.


This argument holds water when going after a lone target. However, it begins to leak if more than one hostile is in the area. However, I do agree that a sig reduction would be better overall. I'll have to do some testing.


Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:56:00 - [568]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

a quick update on some changes we will test on sisi over the weekend.

Following feedback and internal playtesting we are looking at a reasonable compromise between the glass and the cannon part of the stealth bombers. Essentially we are looking to decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds coupled with a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu) to allow some easier and better fits.

The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.

In addition the agility as been fine tuned as mentioned by Nozh in his post so you should find your align and warp times much faster as well now.

This change should be on sisi after it is rebooted next (which means the changes might not appear until tomorrow)

Please keep the feedback coming!


Now we're getting somewhere.
Enough tank and range to insure you won't be 100% primary in any fleet and the ability to get out if things go bad.

15 seconds is acceptable, though maybe it could be reduced somewhat more to 10-12 seconds with skill, so that one could recloak before the target can get a lock. (Average cruiser with two damps applied will generally still get you in 15 seconds).

What kind of Grid/CPU are we talking here?
Also keep in mind that we might want to MWDs as the Stealth Bomber is going into a much more active role.

MWD means cap or cap booster. With only 3-4 mids and the need for damps/target painters/tank, you run out of space faster than you run out of cap.

How about either giving the Stealth Bombers a capacitor improvement to allow for an MWD and two E-War mods, or add a midslot for a cap booster. Keep in mind the PG need of said cap booster.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:58:00 - [569]
 

Awesome idea that I think I've seen around on the forums before. I expect to see alot of wolfpacks of these around, and this is the kind of utility that minmatar needs for their target painters to be more used.

My only request would be for 2 variants of stealth bombers, one with torps and another with cruise. Or perhaps a destroyer class ship that preforms the role stealth bombers currently do... in killing off frigates very quickly.

Charlie chop
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:09:00 - [570]
 

i like the covert ops, i like the idea of more cpu...i like the 15 secs cooldown....but pleeeease dont remove the 20% dmg... its already deadly enough to be so close... now less dmg?....


Pages: first : previous : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : 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