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 : ... 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:06:00 - [601]
 

Edited by: yani dumyat on 03/04/2009 10:04:39


Feedback from current SISI setup

tl;dr: Cannon is about right but i left enough broken glass lying about FD-MLJ to start a bottle factory.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds

a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu)

reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level

agility as been fine tuned ... align and warp times much faster as well now.



I'm showing 15% damage bonus but not the 15 sec delay timer and it doesn't feel more agile so think i may have caught a partial update or something for the following test?


Cannon

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.



The damage output was good but not overpowered. Volley damage with my lvl 2 torp skills was about 3000 but a back of the envelope calculation suggests that 4,500 would be possible using lvl5 and CN ammo, however max skilled pilots are going to be rare in a ship so heavily geared towards blob tactics.

Even assuming max skilled pilots with pimped and rigged ships it would take 11 pilots to pass 100,000 damage dealt in 2 volleys and that's before taking any damage reduction factors into account.

You are spot on with damage as it is, only thing i'd like to see would be the damage bonus split between 7.5% torpedo damage and 7.5% racial damage.


Glass

Notes on cloaking delay moved to seperate post below following more testing.

Most ships i fought could kill me in 4 ish volleys irrespective of whether it was a frig or a bc though a vaga ripped me apart in literally a few seconds.

Sig tank with damps was the most effective form of tank i could find but was dependent on me having equal or superior numbers and choosing a target that was slower than me who i could damp down past 25km. Cap was a problem with this tactic.

Fitting

My fitting skills are all at lvl 5 apart from launcher rigging at lvl 1.

With 2x BCU II, 3x malkuth launchers, cloak and a mwd fitted i had 3.43 PG and 85.25 cpu remaining so tank simply wasn't an option, even sensor damps was tricky and certainly not possible with rigs in.

Maneuverability

It sucks btw. 273 m/s cloaked velocity made it very difficult to get in position because most people are using speed mods in combat.

Tactics

As i've stated before i think the driving force behind this ships popularity will be its ability to travel safely through 0.0 more than any tactical niche it could fill.

Like any gank ship the idea is to get in fast and kill the enemy with superior firepower before they can effectively fire back, any engagement that draws out too long will allow the defender time to exploit your weak tank. (read only effective when blobbing with superior numbers).

I'd like to see more tactical variety introduced, a slight drop in sig radius with 8 second reactivation delay would leave you vulnerable but you wouldn't be a free kill outside of a blob situation.

Cloak tank would be hard to achieve with a blob so would prevent an entire gank blob from cloak tanking unless they were very well disciplined and practiced in which case they deserve their kills.

Hope that helps. Very Happy

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:41:00 - [602]
 

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 03/04/2009 00:41:55
Originally by: Interghast
2 please because I want flexibility not some covert pwnmobile.


Flexibility to do what? Do pathetic damage from any range you like?

Like it or not, if you get cruise missiles, there's going to be a price. And sorry, but anyone with a little common sense would rather have a ship that is awesome in one role than one that is mediocre at two. EVE is a game of specialization, deal with it or go back to WoW.

Quote:
What ewar support are you going to be providing to a gang if you are having to cloak every 15 seconds because you are 35km off a target?


Why are we talking about ewar support from a ship meant to provide dps to recon gangs? That's what your recons are for, the bomber's job is to drop 500+ dps on targets a recon can't break the tank of solo.


PS: you aren't going to be cloaking every 15 seconds, because your target is going to be locked down by a recon or three. This is why, despite all the whining and crying about it, the 30 second delay is a non-issue and needs to be returned along with the extra 5%/level damage.

Quote:
How much help are you against the cruiser gang you've just run into?


Last time I checked? Quite a bit, considering a bomber or two will do plenty of dps to a cruiser if you have good skills. And if you run into a gang that's a threat? Well, that's why you have a covops cloak.


Quote:
I and many others have managed to make the non covops cloak bomber work very effectively and wouldn't have a problem with it (remember it works both ways and it means you also get a chance to counter the bombers warping uncloaked onto grid). As far as my doctor says I'm not insane.


You have not "managed to make them work" except in the same way that you can "manage to make a BattleBadger work". Both are utterly useless comedy ships, but if you're really determined, bring enough of them, and find a noob victim, you can get a kill or two. Bombers as they exist on TQ are nothing more than a waste of database space.

Quote:
I would rather have the non covops cloak speed bonus and cruise as an option but ccp don't wish to give flexibility on range they want a single use to the ship which is a shame. Not that I and others haven't thought of another use for them with no targeting delay from decloak, but I can't see that being allowed for long...


IOW, you want a ship that is better off skipping the cloak and using the extra CPU for more BCUs and missile rigs. The non-covops cloak is worthless.

Quote:
The cruise issue will not go away until the changes are locked in to a TQ build. Until that time there is hope that ccp will decide that lower damage higher range options are not overpowered alongside the torp covops alpha bomber.


Never going to happen. Torp bombers are powerful enough as it is, adding cruise missiles as well would push them over the line into overpowered, and get them nerfed.

Saggy Glands
Amalgamated Transport And Trade
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:42:00 - [603]
 

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

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.



Nice you believe that, however the threads in the assembly hall consisting of actual SB pilots is more valuable than your unfounded beliefs. Increase the ship's effectiveness against smaller targets and they would be happy. It would then no longer be 'rarely used.'

Don't you think that the opinion of those pilots is more important than your 'beliefs?' Of course not, after all you're a game designer. So ignore the players who just wanted their broken boat fixed and implement your hair brained uncloak and insta-die idea.

I believe you are a horrible game designer and the vast majority of pilots would, and will be happy if you were to simply stab your eyes out with a rusty fork.

Marcus Druallis
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.04.03 01:12:00 - [604]
 

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


/signed




Yet all I read in S&M for like a month was how crap they are? People need to make up their minds or CCP will not have any idea in which direction to go.

JVol
Amarr
The IMorral MAjority
Posted - 2009.04.03 01:12:00 - [605]
 

Edited by: JVol on 03/04/2009 01:31:53
Edited by: JVol on 03/04/2009 01:25:35
Edited by: JVol on 03/04/2009 01:23:26
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Getting both torps and cruise just isn't going to happen, so get used to it. Bombers are already going to be extremely powerful ships, adding a long-range option as well would push them dangerously close to overpowered. And you know, I'd really like to keep my torp bomber, not get it nerfed in the near future because the cruise missiles were one thing too many.




Thats just not true at all, the fat lady doesnt sing untill it hits tranq. Anything COULD happen, we've seen it before. In almost every specialized ship in the game as far as recons or elct attack frigs, almost anything really specialized, you STILL get to chose short/long range for your weapons system.

NOT having cruise missiles makes no real sence since ccp has already stamped them as "BS to BS weapons. All CCP is doing by making it TORPS ONLY is making it a SHORT range anti bs platform. EVE's about NOT always knowing what your enemys got fitted, this TOTALLY defeats that, and for no GOOD reason.

Who REALLY thinks adding cruise missiles in the mix is going to overpower this ship? All it will do is allow it to retain a cpl of choices in how YOU like to fly it.








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



....... you see "short' range anywhere in there?

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.04.03 01:13:00 - [606]
 

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

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.



Nice you believe that, however the threads in the assembly hall consisting of actual SB pilots is more valuable than your unfounded beliefs. Increase the ship's effectiveness against smaller targets and they would be happy. It would then no longer be 'rarely used.'

Don't you think that the opinion of those pilots is more important than your 'beliefs?' Of course not, after all you're a game designer. So ignore the players who just wanted their broken boat fixed and implement your hair brained uncloak and insta-die idea.

I believe you are a horrible game designer and the vast majority of pilots would, and will be happy if you were to simply stab your eyes out with a rusty fork.


The current changes outweight the old sb pilots opinions since now its a ship that is actally worth somthing, not a wothless noob gangker. A ship that got a role, and an importent one at that.

Also, a game desinger can not listen to the cries of all the players all the time, some eggs must be broken to make omelets. Cause lets face it, the curret SB on TQ sucks. It can work marginally in some obscure roles, and even then a sniping ship does the job better, or a proper dps ship.

Now it has an excelent role, and it makes use of a weapon platfomr that do not see much use now a days. Now it adds dps to recon gangs, and it uses a cov ops cloak, and that is indeed a much welcome change.

Even I for one is considering actually buying a Manticore now, and actually using int in gang PvP.

These new changes are becomming awsome.

Tho the 15 sec time might be too low, 20 or 30 would be better.

Kerc Kasha
Caldari
Joe Loten Foundation
Posted - 2009.04.03 01:14:00 - [607]
 

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

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.



Nice you believe that, however the threads in the assembly hall consisting of actual SB pilots is more valuable than your unfounded beliefs. Increase the ship's effectiveness against smaller targets and they would be happy. It would then no longer be 'rarely used.'

Don't you think that the opinion of those pilots is more important than your 'beliefs?' Of course not, after all you're a game designer. So ignore the players who just wanted their broken boat fixed and implement your hair brained uncloak and insta-die idea.

I believe you are a horrible game designer and the vast majority of pilots would, and will be happy if you were to simply stab your eyes out with a rusty fork.

Okay yeah let's make the stealth bomber extremely effectie against everything! Let's make sure it has no hard counter whatsoever so an all stealth bomber gang is an unstoppable pwn mobile. You sir win the prize! You are now Lead Developer of CCP!

Jeez do you people even PLAY THE GAME? It seems half the people who scream that CCP have no idea and don't play their own game are the same idiots that haven't half a clue what they're talking about. The stealth bomber should of never of been the frigate/shuttle popping vessel it became, but it did. There are so many ships that fill that role, so bloody many it was frankly an awful idea to even bother flying a stealth bomber when a cheaper solution would be just as effective (Destroyers come to mind). Now stealth bombers are getting a unique role fulfilled by no other ship in the game, an anti-battleship frigate. Instead you want to change it back to the piece of crap before and put it into a field it simply doesn't fit.

MUDACHOOT
Posted - 2009.04.03 01:44:00 - [608]
 

OK new role and bonus sounds good mainly fitting the covert ops cloak .
But removing the cruise will remove its long rang capabilities, why would you do that????.
Bombers are not close rang, they are high altitude or long range delivery platforms,
primarily designed for long-range strike missions against strategic targets.

Saggy Glands
Amalgamated Transport And Trade
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:03:00 - [609]
 

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

Jeez do you people even PLAY THE GAME? It seems half the people who scream that CCP have no idea and don't play their own game are the same idiots that haven't half a clue what they're talking about.


Lol, says the guy who has a whopping 18 kills total on his alliance killboard. Interestingly, none of them with a stealth bomber. A pitch battle against those 6 pods, amirite?

http://www.storietime.com/gsy/killboard/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=25022&view=ships_weapons

Yes I do play the game, yes one of my alts has flown a stealth bomber quite a lot. Yes I did train cruise missiles simply to fly it. No, I don't like the prospect of uncloaking in the middle of a hostile gang to fire one volley of torps before I get drone aggro and insta-die.

The stealth bomber simply needed a bonus to explosion velocity to further along it's role as a long range anti-support and e-war ship. This was the consensus of people who actually had time flying the ship, people with more than a whopping 18 total kills talking big.

Thanks for your input kerc, no go have a seat back at the children's table.

Sang Jin
Gallente
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:32:00 - [610]
 

I realize I am late to the party (very late) but im a part time SB pilot and someone else pointed this out to me.

Even with the 30 second recloak from the first page (and I understand that's being revised?) this setup excites me in a way that an internet spaceship should never do. I want to marry it and have its children.

Seriously CCP devs, these last few updates have been like you have be reading my mind. I love you all.

CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:44:00 - [611]
 

hmm i am thinking about sitting their signature down, this would greatly increase their serviverbillity.

set it too 28-31 sig or so

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2009.04.03 03:41:00 - [612]
 

Edited by: Yon Krum on 03/04/2009 03:41:30
First, let me thank you (CCP Chronotis) and Nozh for taking these issues in front of the player base so aggressively. The extra dressing each morning for those fire-resistent suits has got to get old, but we appreciate the communication. Honest!

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Make a separate bomber class for this new role

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.


Understood and accepted. My concern is simple: that there are not enough dedicated smaller ships designed to do stand-off anti-frigate defense. Current SB can do this rather well even in fleet fights, where destroyers and interdictors (small ships designed for such a role) die almost instantly. I hope you will explore filling this hole further in later posts.

Citadel launchers

I'm looking forward to your ideas for this one! (T2 tier-2 BCs with capital weapon mounts??)

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Cloaked velocity vs explosion velocity vs sig radius bonuses

The signature radius bonus also has a lot of good and compelling reasons to have such a bonus, survivability overall increases very rapidly with such a bonus. We have not ruled this out but it requires careful consideration as we start here approaching a ship which in many scenarios will be too good.



Your decrease of damage to 15% in favor of of a 15 sec cloaking delay is a good balance, however it appears the SB is still incapable of fitting any kind of buffer, and it is too slow to position for attacks (not for the 40km torp range, which is fine, but for midslot modules).

I recommend you decrease the sig radius to a flat 40m, to both give it a bit more tank versus guns larger than small, and reduce locktimes from larger ships. This doesn't solve the problem of SBs dieing in seconds from T2 light drones, but I know a 25-30m sig radius would be pretty wacky. Consider adjusting the HP buffer of the ships in various race-specific ways....

As for speed, the ship should be able to reach about 600-700m/s while cloaked at max skills. That should be fast enough to position at about double current speed, but not as OMG fast as your original, non-covops cloak plan. With the right tweaking, you could make the above speed reachable only at level 5 cloaking and cov-ops ship skills, rewarding the extra training time required.

If needed, you could rebalance the cloaking delay again such that at max skills it is at 17-18 seconds, or in other words the third volley of torps after decloaking.

Thanks for listening to the CPU-needs comments here, from what one responder posted it looks like you gave the ships enough to be flexible. Powergrid might need some further, small increases however.

Please keep giving feedback from your side, and we'll deal with it.

--Krum

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:10:00 - [613]
 

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

Make a separate bomber class for this new role

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.


Dual bonus to both cruise and torpedoes

The other suggestion by many and one we seriously considered originally was this. However it became clear that trying to make the bomber have suitable fitting, range and role requirements to suit both styles of play this would bring would leave be quite horrible as you would have such a vast range of unintended effects which would be a mutant ship and would not have a clear role.


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.

It is quite possible despite its perceived survivability rating that you could come up with a strategy which allows you to solo targets. Never underestimate the right scenario and player :)




While I respect your opinion, I believe the stealth bomber will be used less not more with the changes you are using. They'll be flown more because of the covert ops...you could stick a covert ops ability on any ship and double its flight time. In actual combat their role will be to specialized.

With the changes you are doing you would see it used mostly in gangs. A Falcon/Recon/Stealth Bomber combo would probably be best. Falcon locks down target, Recon (or Covert Ops) tackles target, Stealth Bomber provides dps. Useful in small gang warfare, but not in fleet actions.

The next operational use would be in POS warfare. The problem here might be the numbers you need. Using black ops to fly the stealth bombers into the area, then they move to a covert ops/recon near the target. You could decloak fire recloak possibly before the POS targets anyone. Repeat as necessary, slow and painful but it'll get the job done.

The final operational use will be to hit soft targets. A small stealth bomber wolf pack could patrol for soft targets in belts and missions in low sec. They would again need a recon/covert ops prober buddy. The problem here not much mining happens in low sec these days as it is. You could use them in empire wars as well but due to cost you wouldn't generally use it in high sec without a war.

Thus really as part of a team your are helping the ship but at the expense of solo play options. As a solo pilot they are not useful unless your target is afk. I mean honestly who's gonna stick there while you fire torps at them. Before range from cruise gave you a chance, even though often the target would realize and warp off. Without that range the prospects for solo kills is highly diminished other than ganking a mission runner or ratter who is already swamped by NPCs.

Winterreign
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:29:00 - [614]
 

After looking closely and experementing with the changes in stealth bombers

I've got to say that I love the changes, mostly the use of torpedo's, range and alpha firepower.

However there are several things that just add to my demise repeatedly

Drones: more specificaly if a target has drones out and they are not attacking anyone, my engaging that target will cause the drones to engage me. Not a bit deal. What is a big deal is that the drones lock on to your stealth bomber preventing you from going back into cloak.

That sucks more then anything else as no actual ships are locked on to me only the drones which prevents cloak from working.

I'd like for drones not to interphere with a stealth bombers ability to recloak.

The 30 seccond reactivation delay should be lessened by training in cloaking. Allowing you to cut it down by 2.5 secconds or better 5 secconds per level of cloak, this will help greatly and allows more favorable returns. 30 secconds is way to long and i pretty much feel like i am hang'n in the breeze. And those few times that cruisers can get a lock on me I straight up die.

Apart from that i do like the changes. You've got the right amount of hammer, but the glass is really ice and tends to melt rather easily.

Kerc Kasha
Caldari
Joe Loten Foundation
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:30:00 - [615]
 

Edited by: Kerc Kasha on 03/04/2009 04:35:19
Originally by: Saggy Glands
Originally by: Kerc Kasha

Jeez do you people even PLAY THE GAME? It seems half the people who scream that CCP have no idea and don't play their own game are the same idiots that haven't half a clue what they're talking about.


Lol, says the guy who has a whopping 18 kills total on his alliance killboard. Interestingly, none of them with a stealth bomber. A pitch battle against those 6 pods, amirite?

http://www.storietime.com/gsy/killboard/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=25022&view=ships_weapons

Yes I do play the game, yes one of my alts has flown a stealth bomber quite a lot. Yes I did train cruise missiles simply to fly it. No, I don't like the prospect of uncloaking in the middle of a hostile gang to fire one volley of torps before I get drone aggro and insta-die.

The stealth bomber simply needed a bonus to explosion velocity to further along it's role as a long range anti-support and e-war ship. This was the consensus of people who actually had time flying the ship, people with more than a whopping 18 total kills talking big.

Thanks for your input kerc, no go have a seat back at the children's table.


Because i've obviously only been playing for 2 months which is how long I've been in this alliance, rite?

I do admit I haven't actually flown a stealth bomber but I never had to to realize how awful the bloody things were before these changes on Sisi. They were never considered a threat because they'd only be running solo sitting on a gate cloaked, waiting for a shuttle or frigate to jump in inwhich they'll uncloak, launch their cruises and their target just warps off like nothing even ****ing happened. Their roles in gangs were negligible because it was a case of "you might aswell fly something that isn't a hunk of ****"

So what you're saying is that you say that the changes are awful because you chose to uncloak in the middle of a hostile gang and are wondering why you died, of course it must be the awful changes of CCP not the fact that you did something bloody stupid. It doesn't matter what you're flying when you just JUMP into a hostile gang you're going to die regardless unless you're fast enough to get the hell out of there.

Stroke your e-peen elsewhere.

PS. post on your main

Saggy Glands
Amalgamated Transport And Trade
Posted - 2009.04.03 06:52:00 - [616]
 

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

Because i've obviously only been playing for 2 months which is how long I've been in this alliance, rite?



If you're not so productive at killing ships, maybe your alliance can assign you to shoot at roids instead.

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

I do admit I haven't actually flown a stealth bomber


What was that you were saying in your previous post about idiots that haven't half a clue what they're talking about? Smile for the camera!

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

It doesn't matter what you're flying when you just JUMP into a hostile gang you're going to die regardless unless you're fast enough to get the hell out of there.



Uhh, so the purpose of the new SB in your mind is to jump into the middle of a friendly gang? No wonder you have so few killmails. Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Kerc Kasha

Stroke your e-peen elsewhere.



Talk about boats you've actually flown. Then you'll have an e-peen to stroke.

SAY NO TO TORPS YES TO EXPLOSION VELOCITY!

POKER CHIP
Posted - 2009.04.03 07:15:00 - [617]
 

this is the best thing i have heard since the missile changes and nano nerf!!!
pleeeeeaaassseeeee stick to this Very Happy

Interghast
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.04.03 07:36:00 - [618]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

Flexibility to do what? Do pathetic damage from any range you like?


Here is the crux of the problem, you see the cruise bomber as rubbish because it doesn't provide huge dps.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

Like it or not, if you get cruise missiles, there's going to be a price. And sorry, but anyone with a little common sense would rather have a ship that is awesome in one role than one that is mediocre at two. EVE is a game of specialization, deal with it or go back to WoW.


I post a reasoned argument, do testing on sisi, provide feedback on this testing and you insult me directly because I disagree with your position - thanks.

EVE is a game of flexibility you can chose to fit a close range gank, you can chose to fit a long range sniper with less dps. You can choose to fit active or passive tanks, you have more flexibility than in other games. In this case CCP wants to remove long range to avoid fixing the short range weapon system - the bombs.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

Why are we talking about ewar support from a ship meant to provide dps to recon gangs? That's what your recons are for, the bomber's job is to drop 500+ dps on targets a recon can't break the tank of solo.


You think 500dps from a frigate hull is reasonable?

If you are roaming in a small fleet in any ship and you ignore ewar then you are going to die, it is there for a reason.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

Quote:
How much help are you against the cruiser gang you've just run into?


Last time I checked? Quite a bit, considering a bomber or two will do plenty of dps to a cruiser if you have good skills. And if you run into a gang that's a threat? Well, that's why you have a covops cloak.


If you have enough painters and they don't have light drones. Currently a cruise bomber can damp a target and fight outside their targeting or drone control range and so over time do more damage than a ship that can fire a couple of volleys then has to warp out.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

You have not "managed to make them work" except in the same way that you can "manage to make a BattleBadger work". Both are utterly useless comedy ships, but if you're really determined, bring enough of them, and find a noob victim, you can get a kill or two. Bombers as they exist on TQ are nothing more than a waste of database space.



In your opinion (which is totally fine to differ from mine) it is a comedy ship.

I (and others) were out in the old cruise bomber last night having a great time and killing things (not on this character so don't bother quoting killboard stats. I'm posting on this char (and only this char before somebody accuses me of astoturfing with alts) because I don't want people to take my opinion as that of my alliance).

I was able to lurk around on grid zipping around and chasing support of a station camp (didn't kill them but that isn't always the point).
If the cruise bomber has such terrible damage then why did they bother to warp out and why did they then undock a carrier to remote rep?

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

IOW, you want a ship that is better off skipping the cloak and using the extra CPU for more BCUs and missile rigs. The non-covops cloak is worthless.


Horses for courses. The non covops cloak with the current cloaked velocity bonus is better for dropping bombs (the things the bomber is named after :P). Try warping to a tac off a gate (outside bubble catch point) and getting into bomb launch position without a cloaked velocity bonus (bombs were supposed to be anti-blob and I think it reasonable to be able to get into position on people bubble camping and lob a bomb at them.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

Never going to happen. Torp bombers are powerful enough as it is, adding cruise missiles as well would push them over the line into overpowered, and get them nerfed.

Please make up your mind.
You state the old cruise bomber provides pathetic DPS but adding cruise would make them overpowered?

Revdkor Whorlstev
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:15:00 - [619]
 

Wonderful I get to spend another month training up Torpedo V now. What am supposed to do with my Cruise Launcher II's now? I'm Minmatar and have zero need for cuise missiles outside the Hound ship. Don't even suggest a Typhoon either, no other race has a split weapon type bonus on a battleship and having such can hardly be classified as beneficial or even useful.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:40:00 - [620]
 

There is one thing CCP that you should look at, the current Cloaking Devices fitted on Stealth Bombers.
If these changes hit Tranquility, a lot of SB pilots might find themselves deep in 0.0 or enemy territory with an unbonused regular cloak, crippling them.

If the changes hit Tranquility, make it so that all regular Cloaking Devices are swapped to Covert Ops Cloaking Devices. You did it before with the scan probes and launchers.

Yes, this is also a bit for me, as I got a CN Cloak on my SB (didnt have Cloaking IV at the time and was like, if I spend 12mil on a Cloak II, why not spend 20mil on a CN cloak and play with my new SB now).

Zostera
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:44:00 - [621]
 

Edited by: Zostera on 03/04/2009 08:45:59
Been thinking about this again today and I am still pretty dissapointed with the changes to be made, but have some constructive suggestions to make.

I do largely agree with CCP's intended role, it is the exectution which seems to be the problem.

As I see it the bombers role must be as part of a mixed recon/black ops fleet, it should not be invulnerable, and rely principly upon stealth. The counter to that is speed/range, fast locks and the use of an effective mixed fleet.

The current changes make the engagement too fast and brutal to truely emulate an effective use of stealth, and I really don't see why you wouldn't just warp a bunch of Torp Ravens in.

My suggestion would be.

Allow the use of Co-ops cloak - the bomber is a cov-ops ship and getting into postion sneakily seems fundamental to it's role. An extension on the re-cloak time would be fine with me so long as the ship can operate at range. Also keep the cloaked speed increase to allow the bomber utility in the "bombing role".

Keep cruise as the primary weapon system to allow the ships to operate at range.

Cruise damage bonuses can be tweaked to fit the role and retain the principal of the bombers operating as a pack.

Cruise flight time keeps the bombers on the field if they want the missiles to hit, or warp with a choice to survive.

An effective counter to them already exists, fast support can force them off and negate the dps.
An engagement would be longer with defending support running the gauntlet of the mixed recon fleet to force the bombers off. This would force a longer engagement with lower dps and ships warping in out as in a fleet sniper fight, ships in both fleets focusing on roles and working well together.

If sustained dps from the bombers is needed at the expense of a recon defence, the bombers can spread out to make the counter harder to achieve, but then they are seperated from their own support and more vulnerable to attack. Bunch up for better protection from other recons in the fleet and take a bigger risk of being tackled and popped real fast.

End result is longer more tactical fights for both sides.

Zos


yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:54:00 - [622]
 

Originally by: Marcus Druallis
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Killed a good ship...
/me spits


/signed




Yet all I read in S&M for like a month was how crap they are? People need to make up their minds or CCP will not have any idea in which direction to go.



Go have another look at those threads, mentally remove all the posts by merin ryrskin and then notice that there's quite a lot of people defending the bomber, most of them like myself might make a single post if they are bored but few of us can be bothered dealing with the compulsive rantings of someone so arrogant as him.

Take the time to look at a variety of eve combat and you'll notice that most FW fleets have bombers in them and i regularly see them in 0.0 support fleets. Go to a trade hub region and look at manticore sales compared to other T2 frigs and you'll see they are only usually outsold by the crow and buzzard, compare it to kitsune sales if you want to know what unpopular ship sales look like.

Zostera
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:57:00 - [623]
 

Originally by: Zostera
Edited by: Zostera on 03/04/2009 08:45:59
Been thinking about this again today and I am still pretty dissapointed with the changes to be made, but have some constructive suggestions to make.

I do largely agree with CCP's intended role, it is the exectution which seems to be the problem.

As I see it the bombers role must be as part of a mixed recon/black ops fleet, it should not be invulnerable, and rely principly upon stealth. The counter to that is speed/range, fast locks and the use of an effective mixed fleet.

The current changes make the engagement too fast and brutal to truely emulate an effective use of stealth, and I really don't see why you wouldn't just warp a bunch of Torp Ravens in.

My suggestion would be.

Allow the use of Co-ops cloak - the bomber is a cov-ops ship and getting into postion sneakily seems fundamental to it's role. An extension on the re-cloak time would be fine with me so long as the ship can operate at range. Also keep the cloaked speed increase to allow the bomber utility in the "bombing role".

Keep cruise as the primary weapon system to allow the ships to operate at range.

Cruise damage bonuses can be tweaked to fit the role and retain the principal of the bombers operating as a pack.

Cruise flight time keeps the bombers on the field if they want the missiles to hit, or warp with a choice to survive.

An effective counter to them already exists, fast support can force them off and negate the dps.
An engagement would be longer with defending support running the gauntlet of the mixed recon fleet to force the bombers off. This would force a longer engagement with lower dps and ships warping in out as in a fleet sniper fight, ships in both fleets focusing on roles and working well together.

If sustained dps from the bombers is needed at the expense of a recon defence, the bombers can spread out to make the counter harder to achieve, but then they are seperated from their own support and more vulnerable to attack. Bunch up for better protection from other recons in the fleet and take a bigger risk of being tackled and popped real fast.

End result is longer more tactical fights for both sides.

Zos




Thinking this through a little more it opens up the gameplay an awful lot.

A real problem with EvE atm is the blobs on gates. Bubbling a gate to infinity and beyond with a sniper BS fleet sitting out at range and support at 0 is pretty tough to break. A true black ops fleet can bridge in and help to force the snipers off or force the support to leave the gate.

Evening up the odds a bit to help the aggressors jumping in would help reduce the blob slaughter in circumstances such as these, even nerf titans in some way by forcing a DD to clear the recon fleet as it slowly nibbles away at your defending ships.

Zos

Viskov Kyvarri
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:00:00 - [624]
 

IdeaAnti: Prefix generally meaning "against, opposite or opposing, and contrary." In medicine, anti- often connotes "counteracting or effective against" as in antibacterial, anti-infective, and antiviral. - google definitionIdea

1.) Stealth bomber (Anti-BS) Vs. Battleship = "lol I just popped a bomber with my drones."

2.) Fleet + Stealth Bomber (several ships of varying sizes including Battleship(s)) Vs. Battleship = "%*^&! The GD BATTLESHIP got away because you keep bringing a GD worthless BOMBER instead of ANY OTHER SHIP THAT HAS MORE ULTILTY!"

I personally think that CCP needs to designate the Stealth Bombers as Anti-social. Because bringing one of these to any engagement with the proposed changes over ANY other ship is going to **** people off.






AK Archangel
Warhamsters
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:01:00 - [625]
 

current SiSi setup is terrible ...

Well CCP nerf caldari ships to trash...

Thaxllssyllia
LDK
Test Friends Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:04:00 - [626]
 

Killed the very reasons i chose to fly a stealthbomber. Range advantage, abillity to recloak, significant alpha considering various ship classes the damage could applied to. I loved to fly a stealthbomber, but it's going to put to the shelf with a sticker "Oh my, some good times back then..." if the changes hit TQ, nor i will be able to use/sell my current arsenal of manticores ever, all fitted quite nicely with rigged setups worth over 70 mil isk atm. That's one investment down the drain.

Thanks for fixing what never seemed to be broken for me, i loved the cruise SB. Shame I rescently trained an alt of mine for a purifier especially to be able to use a SB with EM type of dmg.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.03 10:02:00 - [627]
 

Originally by: Thenoran
If the changes hit Tranquility, make it so that all regular Cloaking Devices are swapped to Covert Ops Cloaking Devices. You did it before with the scan probes and launchers.


Don't be stupid.

HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE
Ugly Naughty Larvas
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.04.03 11:02:00 - [628]
 

Let's try to do some brain job.

We'll skip the overall primary target definition, because it will be described later in each case. Also, we

1. CCP defined the "new role" as "anti-battleship" vessel.
We will skip every other combat parameter except HP and damage.
Battle occurs at range of 15 kilometres, so turrets are ineffective. 3 bombers against alone battleship.

SB - 1300 HP / ~4000 volley / ~400 DPS.
Snipe BS (without turrets, med. drones only) - 100k HP / ~600 volley / 150DPS
We suggest that BS is three times webbed and target-painted - totally immobilised and getting full damage.
Torpedo speed 3350m/s. Time to target - ~6sec (including gaining max speed).
Drone speed 2100. Fire range 4200m. Time to target before the first shot ~6sec.

Bombers will give first out volley for free, whilst BS will deploy it drones. Then bombers are getting locked.

3 bombers:
Time needed to kill BS: 100k/(12k/8sec rof)=67+6sec=73sec
Time needed to kill 3 bombers: 3*1300/(600/4sec rof)=26+6sec=32sec
============
BS survived, bombers killed or partially escaped.

6 bombers:
Time needed to kill BS: 100k/(24k/8sec rof)=33,5+6sec=36,5sec
Time needed to kill 3 bombers: 6*1300/(600/4sec rof)=52+6sec=64sec
============
BS killed, but one or two bombers also killed or escaped.

And this is stats for the most vulnerable ship against "new bombers".

Other probabilities: Raven will kill at least three of them. Drake will kill all 6 bombers. Autocannon Hurricane will kill all 6 bombers. Pulse Harbinger will kill all 6 bombers with laughing. Vagabond will kill at least 4 bombers before it will die. Ishtar - the same.

Volley Damage to Jaguar is 10!!! Every small whip will easily screw any amount of attcacking bombers.

Do anyone know any other ship that is the same masterpiece of epic fail
UNABLE TO FIGHT ANY(!) OTHER SHIP SOLO OR EVEN IN PAIR!?

If CCP wants to make Stealth Bombers to be a real anti-battleship vessel, then bomber should become as hard as assault ship and obtain the real devastating firepower. For example fit them with citadel torpedoes and fire them with old signature bonus. giving bomber about 15000 of volley damage probably will grant the bomber it's "primary role".

Second chance:
"Small" bombers: remains as is, getting additional 3% explosion signature bonus to fights versus small and medium ships.
"Big" bombers: the brand new ships with the destroyers hull, 6 siege launchers etc..

........

I really don't know what to offer more to make CCP do something smart, instead of killing the only ships that I love in this game.

Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.03 11:25:00 - [629]
 

I am SO disapointed by the change from cloaked speed into covert ops cloak. Before i tough SB woudl get a boost.. now this is WORTHLESS! Cloaked speed is >>>>> than covert ops cloak for anyone with a brain on tactics and usign short range weapons. Not to say anythign about the huge cost that SB will have now.



Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.04.03 11:31:00 - [630]
 

Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE


If CCP wants to make Stealth Bombers to be a real anti-battleship vessel, then bomber should become as hard as assault ship and obtain the real devastating firepower. For example fit them with citadel torpedoes and fire them with old signature bonus. giving bomber about 15000 of volley damage probably will grant the bomber it's "primary role".




Dumbest idea ever.

It seems you can not manage to get it into your skull that its is a frigs sized weapon platfrom able to take on BSs. If you make it possilbe to tank like AF's in addition you get an immensly overpowerd ship.

To that end you need to sacrefice something, and that is defence systems. As it is now.

Now, you got the cov ops cloak that lets you decide when you want to enter a fight. And that all you need. Its is not a solo ship. Its a gang ship, and acts as supprise dps.

If you really want to go head on head with other BS with dps and tank. Get a BS! not an SB!

Is that concept so hard to understand?

I for one welcome these new changes to the SB, it will make them so much more enjoyable then the old, quite franquly, fail boat that had nothing going for it, at all.

Now it is worth brining in a gang, and now it does something useful. Now its really is stealthy.

So to all the whiners, deal with it, you now got a potnetilly much much much better ship. Learn to use it. And profit from it.

Now frig sized cov ops ships got a weclome different use. All frig cov ops had for them was the astrometic ships (while good at waht they do, its not always fun to fly).


Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 ... : 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