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 : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

mate teahupoo
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2009.04.05 20:05:00 - [811]
 

Hi, I am still new to the game and wanted to add some food for thought.
The bomber would be great if ECM Burst was remade. If the burst was able to
jam drones and other ships like it should, the bomber would have a better chance
of getting out alive.
Like I said, I am still new to the game and this might be a bad idea, but it does not hurt to ask.

Zekari Velon
Posted - 2009.04.05 21:42:00 - [812]
 

What I would do is make a new ship class, "Heavy Stealth Bombers" or something like that (I'm sure you would come up with something better), while keeping the original stealth bombers for attacks against small frigs.

Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:15:00 - [813]
 

After numerous hours on the test server through the last three iterations, I have come to this conclusion:
The only change necessary from the TQ bomber should have been related to the use of bombs and the cloaks.

Bombs:
Reduced price (increase batch)
Change firing functionality - targetted, but undguided

Cloaks:
Same stats as old cloaks
Allow a covert cloak, but when using the covop cloak have a 15s recloak timer.

Torps are inneffective due to the range problems. Most people never fit a tank on the stealth bomber for the same reason you don't tank any frigate but certain assault frigates, they just instapop to everything else.
I would wishlist some ewar bonuses for the stealth bombers, because thats all everyone puts in the mids anyways. But CCP seems intent to change the one module type that most people liked on the stealth bomber, cruise missile launchers.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:56:00 - [814]
 

Ok. I passed the large part of weekend testign Sbombers on sisi.

My impressions.

Torps idea is great but the covert ops cloak is everything wrong on that ship.


We lack the mobility to position ourselves close enough to targets and the recloak timmer makes blink tactics ALMOST impossible. I can run full circles around a BS whose drones are already commited with another target. Uncloak fire 15 seconds later recloak. But for that I need 3 Sensor dampeners, and a BC even so will lock me before the 15 seconds. Also if the BS has 1 MWD or AB he will simply move away from me and I have zero chances of catch up!!! Sbombers NEED to be able to move at least 500ms

To people that didn't went on sisi to test. You can recloak and your torps STILL deal damage after that!!!


Its useless to warp cloaked if you need to slowboat for 20 min to get close to a target. And any target going 300ms you will never reach him to position for a shot.



I would give everything on that ship to drop the cov ops cloak(along with the recloak time penalty) and get back the 1km/s speed while cloaked)


The way i see these ships working wonderfully is at middle of already ongoing fights.. warp in, cloak , move fast cloaked to get cheap shots at targets.



Ship was SAFER and more powerful without the covert ops cloak. Please CCP, revise that.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:59:00 - [815]
 

Originally by: ViRUS Pottage
Edited by: ViRUS Pottage on 05/04/2009 14:25:34
The days when you could 1 volley a frig in a manti should come back. After the missile screw up, I tested my manti against my noob friend in a kessy, and took 4 volleys before I gave up. I then went to 0.0 on a suicide to get rid of this waste of space.

Bombers should be able to 1 shot a frig. As for the anti-bs, you will need a small gang to take down a bs before you die. If I was in a BS and 10 people jumped into local, I wouldn't stay there.. As for torps, all I can say is rofl. Max skills will get you what? 40km? What a waste of time. Id rather you scrap the idea of cov ops cloak and torps, and go back to 3 cruise, damps, sensor boosters, and being able to ACTUALLY KILL ANOTHER SHIP YOUR SIZE.

EDIT

T2 versions of a ship hull should (imo) be able to easily kill its T1 version. For example, a HAC can easily take a Cruiser, a Command Ship can easily take a battlecruiser, a marauder can easily take a battleship, a bomber gets f**ked by a frigate.. This isnt right. If I was in a Manticore, I would try to avoid t1 frigs which is insane.. If you was in a command ship, you wouldnt be scared to go near a battlecruiser.. SAME SHOULD BE WITH BOMBERS.

Lets look at rl bombers.

- They are slow
- They move undetected
- They engage targets at long ranges
- They do alot of damage

There you go.

Make bombers slow, cov ops cloak, long range missiles, and a massive alpha.


that is how a SUBMARINE work, not a bomber.

Bombers move FAST!!! Even a slow bomber as a B2 move VERY FAST. The less time you stay in enemy territory the safer you are. Also they fight at VERY close ranges (compare their speed/weapons range ratio to the same ration on a submarine).





DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.06 00:31:00 - [816]
 

CCP Chronotis- Please consider what you are doing with this ship. It fits the role you are intending it for just fine when you apply the human element and tactics. Please go to link 2 and 3. All of the kills from 1/09 to 4/09 that have bombers were done up close and 4 to 10KM. That being said i have been on board with the testing from the start. I understand the role of the bomber and what it is used for just ask anyone who has run into our Black OPS gang. Granted the change will make us stronger by all means but Iam against it for a number of reason. Please go to link number 1. CCP wants people to move out to 0.0 and this is the ship we use to get them there. This is our noob trainer and once we teach them how to use the cruise bomber they grow from there. If you change this ship to meet YOUR so called intended role you destroy the versitilty of the bomber and that is what will make it a relic. The current ship is a brawler up close so why the change and it can also be used at range. The newer guys can have fun in empire with it and also it can be used in low sec to turn a fight. Battle ships run from our WOLF PACK when we uncloak 4000 meters from them. We can fight every ship type in the game and have FUN and win some times and also get our buts beat. The key element here is the ship is FUN and has a very good niche as is. If you are intending to change that then please look other options before pigeon holing this ship and making it used less.

The links below are there to show and not recruit. I did not post them to promote my alliance just to show that we are very serious about this little ship and really dont want to see it NERFED. All we really wanted was to be able to jump into cyno systems and the option of a COV Cloak. Not much to ask for. We will deal with the changes as they come but man i can not remeber an entire ship class being changed based on a dev thinking it isnt being used as they intended it when it really is. The human element of this game is what is making this ship awsome and fun not the game side. Please listen to your pay check and find another way to meet your intended goals and not with a ship that has been effective for 3 years. This will be my last post on this subject we will continue to test and pray that the devs come up with something that gives us options.

DNSBlack




1. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=976588


2. http://killboard.dirtnapsquad.net/


3. http://killboard.dirtnapsquad.net/?a=campaigns&view=past

Saji'us
Gallente
Pitch Black.
Posted - 2009.04.06 02:16:00 - [817]
 

Edited by: Saji''us on 06/04/2009 02:20:08
Originally by: DNSBLACK
CCP Chronotis- Please consider what you are doing with this ship. It fits the role you are intending it for just fine when you apply the human element and tactics. Please go to link 2 and 3. All of the kills from 1/09 to 4/09 that have bombers were done up close and 4 to 10KM. That being said i have been on board with the testing from the start. I understand the role of the bomber and what it is used for just ask anyone who has run into our Black OPS gang. Granted the change will make us stronger by all means but Iam against it for a number of reason. Please go to link number 1. CCP wants people to move out to 0.0 and this is the ship we use to get them there. This is our noob trainer and once we teach them how to use the cruise bomber they grow from there. If you change this ship to meet YOUR so called intended role you destroy the versitilty of the bomber and that is what will make it a relic. The current ship is a brawler up close so why the change and it can also be used at range. The newer guys can have fun in empire with it and also it can be used in low sec to turn a fight. Battle ships run from our WOLF PACK when we uncloak 4000 meters from them. We can fight every ship type in the game and have FUN and win some times and also get our buts beat. The key element here is the ship is FUN and has a very good niche as is. If you are intending to change that then please look other options before pigeon holing this ship and making it used less.

The links below are there to show and not recruit. I did not post them to promote my alliance just to show that we are very serious about this little ship and really dont want to see it NERFED. All we really wanted was to be able to jump into cyno systems and the option of a COV Cloak. Not much to ask for. We will deal with the changes as they come but man i can not remeber an entire ship class being changed based on a dev thinking it isnt being used as they intended it when it really is. The human element of this game is what is making this ship awsome and fun not the game side. Please listen to your pay check and find another way to meet your intended goals and not with a ship that has been effective for 3 years. This will be my last post on this subject we will continue to test and pray that the devs come up with something that gives us options.

DNSBlack




1. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=976588


2. http://killboard.dirtnapsquad.net/


3. http://killboard.dirtnapsquad.net/?a=campaigns&view=past



You guys should seriously listen religiously to anything DNS says. They are a very strong covert corp who specializes in SB wolf packs and are very good at it.

Honestly I have heard nothing but good things about this corp from in game, the forums, even youtube. If they are saying rethink the changes, take it to heart.

Are they the only people who fly stealth bombers? of course not. Are they the biggest corp I know that specializes in PVP and training with them that I know of? Yes.

Furthermore, EVE is a sand box game. doesn't completely redoing a ship for a specific role kind of take the forming of the sand away? Confused

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2009.04.06 02:51:00 - [818]
 

The more I play around with the bombers on the test server, the less I want to fly one of these ships. There is just isn't any survivability here. I can't see why I would be better off flying a close range torpedo bomber with a huge cloaking delay over a long range cruise bomber that needs 5 seconds to blip off the radar. Sad I want to love the new bomber but I can't see it happening.

smokeydapot
Posted - 2009.04.06 05:58:00 - [819]
 

Edited by: smokeydapot on 06/04/2009 06:06:13
CCP improve on what the ship has its a good ship as it is if you want it to take down BS's also well sort out the bonuses for what it has not nerf it totaly.

Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to Cruise Missile damage and -16.66% reduction in Explosion Radius of Cruise Missiles and 20% Bonus to Explosion velocity per level

Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to Cruise Missile and bomb thermal damage and multiplies the cloaked velocity by 140% per level -98% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level.

Role Bonus: -99% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs, -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use and -100% targeting delay after decloaking

Im not saying these should be the bonuses but i hope you get the idea improve on what it has already got not change it totaly.

CCP YOUR IDEA IS A FAIL.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 05:59:00 - [820]
 

I'm still in there pitching for some sort of bonus to cloaked speed.

Not only would it be a godsend for maneuvering into torpedo range, but if bomb stay even remotely the same as they are now a speed boost will be absolutely necessary for them to be successfully deployed against the fleets they are supposed to disperse.

As things stand now a group of BS aligned for warp (as is their normal state in combat) will outrun the cloaked bomber fairly quickly, making it impossible to deploy a bomb to any good effect. The only option is to warp directly to someone already in the correct position, snap off a hurried bomb drop before the range becomes too great, pray you got aligned correctly, and warp out if possible.

In truth, the only viable target for bombs will be a fleet parked stationary on a gate, and 15 seconds is plenty of time to jump through (or warp out for that matter). Ideally you would deploy a bomb on a tight group already engaged/distracted by combat (otherwise they will notice the bomb and warp out if they feel threatened by it), but a fleet engaged in combat will be on the move (usually aligned to something). The fact that to do any significant damage to a fleet of larger ships you have to get several bombers into the correct position makes a nearly impossible situation completely beyond the pale.

This really isn't much fun, and truthfully only compounds the already existing problems with bomb deployment. A "bombing run" should be a necessary component of the attack. If a speed bonus while cloaked isn't in the cards, then bomb deployment will have to be reworked from the ground up.


HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE
Ugly Naughty Larvas
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.04.06 06:41:00 - [821]
 

Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 06/04/2009 07:18:07
Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 06/04/2009 07:10:54
I totally reject the cov-op cloak for the old cloaked-speed bonus. It is real that key for success is the high speed in cloak.

I still vote that if the bomber is the just a frigate with some special abilities, it should be able to fight any ships. So, there should be old cruise missiles with some boost to expl. radius bonus, or new expl. speed bonus to be able to take away the rifters.
And even especially to the new "anti-capital" and/or "anti-battleship" role the new "advanced defence-piercing" role-bonus to hit directly the structure almost ignoring the shield and armor for these shiptypes.

With great pleasure I'll accept the 30-50-70% cruise missile range penalty for that.

I'd like to see something like the following:

Quote:
Name: Manticore
Hull: Kestrel Class
Role: Stealth Bomber

Bla-bla-bla description...

Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus:
5% Bonus to Cruise Missile kinetic damage per level
-19,5% Bonus to Cruise Missile explosion radius per level

Covert Ops Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to Cruise Missile and bomb kinetic damage per level
150% bonus to cloaked velocity per level.

Role Bonus:
-xx% reduction in Cruise Missile Launcher powergrid needs
-99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use
-100% targeting delay after decloaking
20% Bonus to shield and armor piercing per Covert Ops skill level against battleships and capital ships.

Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators.


Looks like total imbalance? No! It isn't! Every HAC locks SB in 6 seconds and insta-popping it, while it would take up to 10 volleys to kill a HAC by a bomber. So, the carefully supported battleship gang will not be harrassed a lot by bombers. Solo battleships were dead in 0.0 space long time ago. What about low-sec space? The same - battleships should be supported by HACs or inties. With offeres bonuses bombers still will not gain the ultimate button, but could take the real role in global warfare.

Today we see the capital blobs of dozens of dreadnoughts and carriers. If some corp or ally can't afford the adequate real-money injections against such offence, they're helpless. But with such special vessels it brings the possibility to fight.

Lets imagine the common situation. Dreadnoughts and battleships attacking the POS, whilst support guarding the gates.

Common dreadnought has about 250 kilos of structure. So, it could take up to 90 volleys of the perfect stealth bomber to take it down. Or 9 volleys of the bomber-squad. 9 volleys is up to 120 seconds - long enough to call for the HAC support.
Bombers will not decloak if the hacs are guarding the dreadnoughts, but POS is able to shoot the HACs. HACs need to move around to get out of the POS-guns tracking and so on..

Offered bonuses grants the stealth bombers the real role in warfare. In spite of paper-thin tank, bombers getting the ability to fight against fat-ass ships, making the global battlefield more versatile to any kind of strategic ideas.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2009.04.06 06:44:00 - [822]
 

I've been tinkering with the bomber for the past few days and it's biggest problem is rather ironically the cov ops cloak everyone has been demanding for so long. It's actually better using a t2 cloak and going 70m/s cloaked but having the ability to blinky attack at 30km than it is using a cov ops cloak and having to warp out or actually tank.

I like torps, a proper blinky attack works best with torps anyways as you need to be close even with cruises. The damage is also much better. The bomber's main problem on TQ is the anemic damage and no, popping noobs in frigs is not a valid use of a 20M+ isk ship. I would like to have the current bonuses stick except remove the cov ops cloak and give it back the 1km/s cloaked speed bonus.

This setup will allow blinky attacks as we are accustomed to on TQ with much higher damage vs worthy targets and also allow for proper positioning. There are many whiners on here but honestly, I think your initial idea may have been the best. It needed some tweaking but I think it's pretty much there now. Just swap that cov ops cloak back to the big basic t2 cloak speed bonus.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 08:52:00 - [823]
 

Edited by: Thenoran on 06/04/2009 08:55:29
The only issue I've had is that CCP seems to want to use their own idea rather than please the players who will use it.

Although understandable, why press an idea when all those affected by that idea disagree with it?
Does it really matter if a ship has a vague role in the eyes of the devs?

We fly it, we use it, we kill with it, we die in it and we have fun with it.

Yes, it needs a bonus or two.
Yes, it isn't the most popular ship.

So.What?

If the current pilots of the Stealth Bomber prefer the ship the way it is but with a bonus or two added, why not do that?
They are the ones you want to make happy here right?

If you really want a Torp Bomber, please give that role to a new T2 Destroyer hull.
That fits the size, the class and heck even the name and it adds new life to Destroyers.

I use my Stealth Bomber against Frigates.
I sneak around, get within 30-40km, wait for an unsuspecting target and then one volley them.
This limits me to T1 frigs, some T2 frigs and Destroyers.

I'm fine with that, it's what I CHOOSE to limit myself to, to act as a Submarine.
For me that is fun, not so much dealing uber amounts of damage, but making the enemy go 'wtf happened'.

Your proposed role FORCES the Stealth Bomber to engage a single ship class, the Battleship.
Anything smaller than that is just not worth shooting at and anything bigger is a Capital ship.
No ship in EVE has such a terrible, terrible limitation.

The new role idea has potential, but it is NO reason to ditch the current Stealth Bomber.
If the SB pilots don't want Torps on their current SB, why press the issue.

It's not like the SB is overpowered, never used and never produced is it?

If you were to cut the speed in half of all BSes because you think they're too fast, would you still press the issue if half of EVE's population disagreed with it?

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:01:00 - [824]
 

Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE
Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 06/04/2009 07:18:07
Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 06/04/2009 07:10:54
I totally reject the cov-op cloak for the old cloaked-speed bonus. It is real that key for success is the high speed in cloak.



Exaclty!


With no High speed while cloaked the short range missiles bomber becomes useless. I played a LOT on sisi with these new changes and very very seldom the covert ops cloaked helped me on ANYTHING. And abotu every time i was desperate for being able to move faster whiel cloaked and trying to get on position.



Please CCP. Drop to normal cloak, no recloak penalty and bring the 750-1200ms cloaked speed. Without that torpedo bombers are useless. The covert ops cloak is a viable idea only for the old CRUISE bomber since it does not have to redeploy.

ViperII
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:14:00 - [825]
 

13 pages. ok, if i mention an idea or suggestion i missed, please forgive me.
let bombers have 3 launchers. any 3 combo is fine, but only a max of 2 bomb launchers. so like ;

2 bomb launchers + 1 cruise launcher.
3 cruise launchers with current missile bonuses.
2 torp launchers + 1 cruise
2 cruise + 1 torp.
2 torp + 1 bomb.

i think you get my point. we pilots could pick and choose our fleet role,:examples:

1. 3 cruise launchers for anti-cruiser, anti-frigate work, but i would like a slightly faster ROF.

2. 2 bomb launchers and a torp launcher for disrupting and confusing a large station or gatecamp.

3. 3 torp launchers for anti-battleship duty.

other ideas. change the bomb size. 3 torps = 1m3, 1 bomb = 5 or 10 m3. 75m3 for 1 bomb is just silly.

4. either stay with current cloaking device at double the current cloaked speed boost or reduce recloak delay down to 10-15 sec. 30 sec delay after uncloaking just makes you dead after launching 1 volley.

5. bombs and torps need about speed boost. bombs speed doubled from normal so range is about 36km, torps need to fly about 50-60 km at around 2000mps. note real world torpedos can travel nearly 65 km at speeds near 70kph. no military ships go that fast.

6. and it would be nice to have a +1 warp core strength if we got to wait 15-30 sec to recloak.

7. lastly, if bombers can't recloak for 15-30 seconds. let them recloak after that time delay even if target locked. then we can warp home with 20% structure left and smoking if we are lucky.

8. bombs should still do damage even if we cloak. bombs are stupid. it is a point and shot and after so many seconds, it explodes.





Tytis Kraiger
Caldari
Kouncel
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:21:00 - [826]
 

CCP Chronotis,

For a Dev, Im suprised to have seen you post as many times as you have within the 28 pages thus far. Im even more suprised you have done more than just listen to our plea's, and made adjustments. Its encouraging to see at least one Dev for CCP is attentive. I have been burned on CCP forums b4, and hate to be forced to make my voice read here now. But I have no choice. CCP is attacking and fiddling with the ONE ship I get the most enjoyment in EVE. Please, read Listen, but also CHANGE your opinions. Yours is NOT the key voice even though you have the power to abuse and make it so.

You want to press this ship into a role. When it already has one, though it doesnt do it well mainly due to ONE reason; it must declaok to go into warp. Well I give you props for allowing us to fit the cov ops cloak and thus fix this difeciency.

Yet here you are adressing one weekness of the ship and then give it 3 more. Bye changing its warhead from cruise to torps a pilot can NO LONGER threaten anything smaller than a BS. Also the use of torps means our effective range is seriously minimized. Then finally, you take away its speed while cloaked witch means the manuverability it gains with the cov op cloak is neer reduntant as it cannot move into postion in normal space.

These 3 weekness's are not a fair trade off to be able to warp while cloaked.

This ship for no better example is a submarine. Dont be hung up on the sematics of the word TORPEDO as some missplaced sence of duty to make the SB have to fire said warhead. I would offer one other suggestion; keep things as your determined to have them but allow us to fit all bay types lest the citadel launcher. Let US the REAL SB pilots fill roles as we deem fit. You get ur torp firing SB with all the changes u propose and lessen greatly the justifications for piloting the ship for us YOUR CUSTOMERs.

Please, Chronotis, of all like minded entries to this thread, I ask that you and the CCP team consider this entry with all seriousness

Fly with Honor and Courage
Tytis Kraiger


Galenea Moreau
Galactic Operations
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:33:00 - [827]
 

I did a little bit of testing on sisi over the weekend and I was surprised how much you can tank the SB.

I stuck an alt in an SB with an extender and fitted up a cerberus with max missile skills, Assault launchers, precision light missiles and every skill wire that makes it easier to hit small targets.

It actually survived 6+ volleys while orbiting the cerb under AB. That's your 30s recloak delay covered....but fitting a medium extender, pretty much you can forget fitting anything else, CPU on the manticore in my case with max fitting skills was a nightmare

However I then took my same missile skills and got it an SB myself and I found I was incredibly dissapointed with the damage output. Anything moving at reasonable speed, AB etc was pretty much laughing at me. I then realiased of course that my guided missile precision 5 was no longer having any effect as it doesn't work on torps. I still have a few old combat logs and I also found as others have that my effective damage output has dropped considerably over having cruises.

The overall range wasn't too bad when using t2 Javelins. Just over 60km but the damage situation was incredibly bad when using those.

Others have already commented on the difficulty manouvering to a firing spot now and I can't say I disagree with them.

On the whole I found the whole "New SB" experience to be profoundly disapointing. I'm afraid that the new SB doesn't do anything that the current 'Broken' one doesn't do as well if not better and I'm including the support role for the black ops groups, in that where the extended use of the massive range of the cruises is significantly more of a benefit than of a short range quickly disposed of torp bomber

Personally I'll expect to be recycling mine for the components and building a Hawk as it'll be a lot more fun to fly. That's how bad the "New SB" is.

If you desperately want to fly a close range missile frigate buy 50 kestrels with fittings. You'll still have change from the Manticore and you'll have more fun and most likely get more kills.

Sorry Chronotis, as much as I would love to say you've gotten it spot on and you'll now have a lot of happy pilots I really can't. The new SB simply doesn't have the Bang for Buck ratio to make it worth flying. In fact it's bang for Buck is significantly lower than the existing one as you are at least 50% more likely to loose it due to the range nerf of torps.

Please try out some of the more off the wall suggestions to see if they will actually do the job better because a) it'll prove you are actually listening to those of us who are bothering to test ships and feed back and b) there may actually be a workable solution in there somewhere that will make you an absolute Hero to us SB pilots that do actually use our ships for combat. Come on and prove the doubters wrong when they say CCP never listens once they've made their mind up.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 10:33:00 - [828]
 

Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!


Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:38:00 - [829]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Flight time...? Velocity is better in every single aspect, add 10% to the Velocity bonus instead.
So now we get Torpedoes with no actual bonuses other than range?
Is it really needed to limit the SB to fighting only Battleships?
Way to kill ship diversity...

Zostera
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.06 11:10:00 - [830]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Reading into this a little it seems that this actually makes the situation worse for the bomber pilots who have invested time in cruise.

Not only will it be incredibly role specific, you will require maximum skills to be effective/survive at all.

Bomber used to be a fun ship to fly with some medium skill levels, now it will be suicide with a huge investment of time on skills too.

Zos


Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 11:34:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Really...?

Sobic
The Flaming Sideburn's
Waterboard
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:03:00 - [832]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!





lol he already did a ninja edit. Yes plz no flight time bonus, that is simply worthless.
I know you guys(CCP) don't want to overpower them, but at the same time they have to be pretty effective for a frig simply because of the fact that you can easily poor 60+mil into this frail ship to make it most effective. There are not that many ways to kill WITH a bomber. But there are 1000 ways to kill THEM.

To all those people complaining about speed, I would rather have the complete surprise factor of a Covert Cloak than the cloaked speed any day. It just requires a team effort or a little more preparation in the target grid.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 12:05:00 - [833]
 

Originally by: Thenoran
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Really...?


Was being a bit premature reporting the bonus switch from torpedo explosion velocity to torpedo flight time. We are still looking at it internally but nothing decided yet. Overall it has some compelling reasons which make it a lot nicer than an increase to explosion velocity dependant on the scenario.

Rivqua
Caldari
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:07:00 - [834]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Thenoran
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Really...?


Was being a bit premature reporting the bonus switch from torpedo explosion velocity to torpedo flight time. We are still looking at it internally but nothing decided yet. Overall it has some compelling reasons which make it a lot nicer than an increase to explosion velocity dependant on the scenario.


At the same time give them a 20% / level explo raidus ? :)

Papa Digger
OEG
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:08:00 - [835]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s


You mean now bomber will be able to launch and not be blowing up by his own bomb?? Thanks gods.. only 2 years pass.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:28:00 - [836]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Thenoran
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




Really...?


Was being a bit premature reporting the bonus switch from torpedo explosion velocity to torpedo flight time. We are still looking at it internally but nothing decided yet. Overall it has some compelling reasons which make it a lot nicer than an increase to explosion velocity dependant on the scenario.


Realisticly speaking, the only thing Flight time will add is time you need to stay uncloaked.
Coupled with the fact you aren't going to be far away, this makes for unneeded danger.

Especially a Battleship can easily get one or two potshots out to 60-70km, or at the very least order light drones to you.

Flight time has no real value, whereas Velocity means you can fire further, but will have to stay out in the open for longer. However, unlike Flight time, if you are close up, the added Velocity will mean you can recloak faster as the missiles take less time to hit the target.

On top of this, targets will always move.
Even a webbed & scrammed Typhoon has some speed to it.
Add to this that Torpedoes in general works only on very large and immobile targets, Explosion Velocity is nearly mandatory to be effective.

Also keep in mind that it is simply bad to have a ship be limited to fighting only one ship class.
Cruisers should still take some damage, and if a Frigate decides to be stupid and not move, it should fear a Stealth Bomber.

As such, perhaps splitting the Explosion Velocity bonus between Explosion Velocity and Explosion Radius would allow for some better effectiveness against both smaller aand moving targets.

The current Stealth Bomber can one-volley an untanked T1 Frigate if it doesn't move.
That should remain. Finding such a target is difficult, and a Stealth Bomber is a ship of opportunity.
If I find an untanked Frigate (say a Kitsune at a bubble, 70km away from his fleet) that isn't moving and open fire on it, it should still be destroyed. Not moving should remain an important factor in how much damage a Stealth Bomber can do.

With that in mind, you can give a Stealth Bomber some serious, serious Alpha damage (8000 raw or something), which would then be reduced significantly by the target's size and speed.

An stationary, untanked T1 Frigate should still take about 50% of that 8000 damage.
If it moves, the damage drops significantly.

Against Battleships, which have a lot of HP, resists and still tend to move like 40-50m/s, you'd do more damage (5000-6000), but that would be fair against a Battleship wouldn't it?

Using Torpedoes is fine, but some of the current roles a Stealth Bomber has should remain.
Anything that doesn't move and run away should have a very good reason to fear a Stealth Bomber.

You don't have to worry about people uber sniping ships from 90km away, as anyone with half a brain would simply warp out or start moving.

DeadlyBob
Minmatar
Woopatang
Primary.
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:40:00 - [837]
 

I've read this thread through. I can't get my Sisi to work still... So haven't tried the new boat yet. However I'm seeing trends in these posts.

Trends.

Pilots are NOT happy with the new SB.

Pilots do not like the lack of speed as it currently sits.

Pilots are not happy about the change from Cruise to Torps for Several reasons.

A: Speed, of said missles (They can't catch fast moving vessels)

B: Range, Max range of 60km with T2 Ammo = much lower survivability

C: Damage, can't kill anything worth killing without support (Hell we can solo in BC/BS/HAC/Cruisers?Intys/Af) It isn't like we are trying to tackle in a bomber...

Speed, changing over to the Covops Cloak = Good idea, making the ship Crawl at 70ms = Bad idea.

Time, The majority of current SB pilots who have invested the month or more of training time for cruise missiles 5 + other skills

Fun. plain and simple. The current bomber is fun to fly. According to several posters who have tested the new bomber... It isn't. FUN factor is the biggest key to replay value of games. Please consider the fun factor.

I'd rather have half the damage with cruise missiles we currently have. While giving the bombers the covops cloak and keeping the speed as is, than Torps and no speed bonus...

I am still optimistic about these changes. I just can't fault the logic of other pilots. If they say it isn't fun. Then it bloody well isn't fun. I love to fly the current bomber, don't make it less enjoyable or it will sit in many hangars and rot and I'll have to go back to flying gank omens.



AK Archangel
Warhamsters
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:55:00 - [838]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Was being a bit premature reporting the bonus switch from torpedo explosion velocity to torpedo flight time. We are still looking at it internally but nothing decided yet. Overall it has some compelling reasons which make it a lot nicer than an increase to explosion velocity dependant on the scenario.


Come on people you still look TO WRONG SIDE! Make second type of SB but KEEEP CRUISE MISSILE for standart bomber just slightly fix his bonus ... its easy , why you try ruin working and fun ship class ?

yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:13:00 - [839]
 

Edited by: yani dumyat on 06/04/2009 14:00:26


CCP are getting there and I for one will be training up torps 5 to use this fun little boat as long as there are a few changes especially to cloaked velocity.

The cloaked velocity, with navigation 5, acceleration control 4 and no speed mods in a manticore my top speed was 272 m/s = 16.32km a minute.

Traveling 100km to surprise a stationary sniper takes 6 minutes lol. I now have a magazine to read sitting by my computer for when i'm testing this ship against unsuspecting BS's in the FFA.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

To help with the manoeuvring into range, we are looking at increasing the cloaked velocity substantially (so the bomber could have a velocity between 750-1200 m/s). This way the bomber could better keep up and get into range faster with targets for a strike.



If this was needed on a cruise bomber it is very very needed on a torp bomber, no range and no speed = total fail.


MWD fits have tended to leave me dead due to sig bloom so if we are meant to sig tank an AB bonus would be welcome, possibly being able to use an AB while cloaked and an increase to base speed could achieve 1000m/s?


EDIT:
Quote:
OR give us (the current SB pilots) a pirate faction frig that would fill the role you are taking away from us?

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:30:00 - [840]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick update on what we are looking at testing:

- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s

ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed YARRRR!!




So, the bombs that arent worth using are now a little faster, hence better range and less chance of idiots blowing themselves up.

Forgive me if i dont jump for joy.

Bomb use in Lowsec.


Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : 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