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 : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:35:00 - [841]
 

Still needs more survivability, it's still a paper thin tank going up against on of the highest tank ships in the game. More speed, more base shields or armor etc etc..

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:40:00 - [842]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 06/04/2009 14:05:03

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.


The bomb velocity increase is very, very nice. Now at least you can stay aligned to your target, or a warp out point on the other side of your target, without worrying so much about inflicting significant damage to yourself (or being blown up by other bombers firing on the same target). This offsets some of the issues with positioning the bomber with its new lower speed (although I personally find the speed bonus more fun, you know what I'm saying).

I'm running through my head the possible switch from Torpedo Explosion velocity (which lets you bring more damage to bear without fitting a Target Painter on BS, or more damage to bear on medium sized targets in conjunction with a Target Painter) to increased Torpedo Flight Time (which would allow engaging from much longer range).

I'm assuming the Torpedo Velocity bonus would remain unchanged.

If this is the case, the need for the bomber itself to be faster is greatly reduced in general, and ranges would be back out into the realm that would make a lot of the pilots that believe the bombers only defense currently is range more comfortable. What will that put your max engagement range with Torpedoes at, 80km? 100km? Depends on the size of the bonus and skill level I suppose. Interesting.

So the two basic scenarios will be:

Torpedo Attack:
1: Warp into position cloaked (often with a spotter as a warp to point).
2: Make sure target is tackled or in a bubble.
3: Uncloak (at range), target, range damp target (or use other EW), possibly Target Paint target, launch Torpedoes, do your best to stay in range of the target, be alert and ready to warp out.
4: Realize you are attacking outside the engagement range of your targets drones and be mildly astonished that you survived the encounter.

Bombing Run

1: Warp into position cloaked (often with a spotter as a warp to point).
2: Make sure target is tackled (by an AB Assault Frigate tanked for your damage type, or possibly the rare AB Interceptor) or in a bubble.
3: Align to your target, uncloak at 30km or so and immediately launch your bomb, target while aligning to your warp out point (if its not inline with your target), resolution damp target (or use other EW), possibly Target Paint target, launch 2 Torpedoes, be alert and ready to warp out.
4: Continue firing Torps until your target dies or you are forced to warp out. Even with the bomb launch you will be out of immediate scram range in most cases.

Still dangerous? Yes.
Survivable? Much more so.

Very interesting indeed.



DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:54:00 - [843]
 

Edited by: DiseL on 06/04/2009 14:54:33
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.


I honestly cannot believe this! The explosion velocity bonus made it significantly more viable. If CCP hadn't absolutely gimped torps in the first place we wouldn't need the explosion velocity bonus. Before that bonus was added the torp damage was pathetic at best except in the perfect situation. I am all for more range but not if the torp can't hit anything for even mediocre damage. There is no way you should be able to start speed tanking a torp at 100ms. You do realize the bomber is significantly relied upon for damage in the Black Ops theatre don't you? So Black Ops hot drops are now going to be focused on taking out battleships or cyno jammers and that's it? You are taking a niche in the game and making it so one dimentional that there is no point training for it anymore. A fleet of bombers should be able to kill something smaller than a battleship without 5 Target Painters and multiple webs. This whole idea of making a frigate based ship an anti-battleship platform is flawed completely! I am also done posting here! This was supposed to be productive but the role of the ship is being looked at with tunnel vision. It will become another dust collector except for those rare moments where the perfect situation presents itself and then 5 minutes later it's over.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:55:00 - [844]
 

While you're tweaking bombers, can you guys PLEASE change bomb launchers to not take a launcher hardpoint!?
Seriously, they are niche enough as is Crying or Very sad

Number 86
Perkone
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:59:00 - [845]
 

are the fittings/ slot layouts going to remain the same?
and I mean, will it still only have 3 launcher hardpoints?

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:59:00 - [846]
 

SB's NEED that explosion V bonus.

Sure that extra range is nice, but Torps are gimped and need the previous bonus.

How many sodding TP's were you intending we bring. Crying or Very sad

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:06:00 - [847]
 

Btw.. people saying that drones will insta pop you if they are already laucnhed. That is a LIE!! I tested a LOT on sisi FFa1 got shot quite some time by the drones. But they NEVER EVER got me even at armor before I could warp out.

Pople that talk without testing.. the same people that was spreadign the LIE that you cannot cloak when someone is on process of locking you...


You do not need range at all in fact. If tagert droens are not orbiting their mothership witign for target they will nto even lock you. And if they do you can ALWAYS warp out as soon as the first volley you launched (smartly from about 5 km ditance) hits the target. The only drones that are problematic are sentries.


Blink tactics are the way to go. All I want it get out the useless cov ops cloak and give us back cloaks that can be recloaked in 5 seconds and FAST moving while cloaked.

Telfas
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:10:00 - [848]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
All I want it get out the useless cov ops cloak and give us back cloaks that can be recloaked in 5 seconds and FAST moving while cloaked.


Or both... Why do you had to remove the speed bonus ? Affraid of making SB imba ? there's not to worry about that. As long as we have our crappy tank, we won't be imba.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:18:00 - [849]
 

Originally by: Telfas
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
All I want it get out the useless cov ops cloak and give us back cloaks that can be recloaked in 5 seconds and FAST moving while cloaked.


Or both... Why do you had to remove the speed bonus ? Affraid of making SB imba ? there's not to worry about that. As long as we have our crappy tank, we won't be imba.



I am just aimming for the easiest thing to convince CCP.... so I ask for something giving up of another....

I really find near useless the covert ops cloak. That is a reconessaince tool, not a bombing tool.

Pilk
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:22:00 - [850]
 

Originally by: Monetary Bias
Edited by: Monetary Bias on 02/04/2009 20:58:07
Edited by: Monetary Bias on 02/04/2009 20:57:12
Originally by: Pilk
Originally by: McEivalley
In no navy in the world ever has a battleship went roaming alone, and if it did, it usually didn't come back.

The quintessential example of that would be the Yamato, the largest BB ever constructed. In Operation Ten-Go, it sailed with support of just a single light cruiser and a small detachment of destroyers, and without even so much as a scout plane. It was quickly destroyed by Allied air units without a single shot from an opposing ship being fired upon it. This despite the fact that, contrary to popular conception of it as merely a carrier for enormous main batteries, it in fact fielded over 150 antiaircraft guns, plus supplementary antiaircraft fire from the rest of its group.

Of Yamato's 2,700-man crew, 202 survived.

You don't take battleships out solo against a competent (and even moderately-well-informed) enemy.

--P


You failed to mention that, as per the Wiki article you cited, the Yamato was on a suicide run.

OFC it's gonna die.

So you're saying the EVE corollary is that a battleship has to be on a suicide run for it to be taken down by frigates? pff...


Operation Ten-Go was hardly a suicide run. It was a one-way run, but the intent was to beach the ship and have it serve as a coastal battery. The intention was certainly not simply to divert a few hundred planes, as would be implied by a "suicide" descriptor. Had Yamato made landfall, she could have been an incredibly-powerful deterrent to large ship support of Operation Iceberg, as she could hit enemy vessels without fear of retaliation by any means other than aircraft, as nothing could match her range. That said, the probability was, even had Yamato perfectly defended against any more landings, Okinawa would have fallen; by the time she would have made landfall (early- to mid-April), somewhere between one and two divisions of Marines were already on the island, facing two divisions of underequipped Japanese soldiers. By the Japanese's own officers' estimations, each division of U.S. troops brought five times the firepower of a comparable Japanese division to bear. Thus, the only serious remaining obstacle would have been logistical--armies like to eat, and tanks need fuel--which could largely have been accomplished by air in a pinch.

Anyway, probably far more information than you cared to have, but I find the whole period quite fascinating.

--P

Telfas
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:25:00 - [851]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Telfas
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
All I want it get out the useless cov ops cloak and give us back cloaks that can be recloaked in 5 seconds and FAST moving while cloaked.


Or both... Why do you had to remove the speed bonus ? Affraid of making SB imba ? there's not to worry about that. As long as we have our crappy tank, we won't be imba.



I am just aimming for the easiest thing to convince CCP.... so I ask for something giving up of another....

I really find near useless the covert ops cloak. That is a reconessaince tool, not a bombing tool.


I find it really usefull, more than before with the opti range of torp.

If they know where you're arriving, it's really easy to have an idea of where you are.
And they have plenty of time to warp out.

I'm training the skill for my first bomber, don't have a lot of experience in. But as i see them they should have :
- Cov ops cloaking device : To be able to approch their prey sneakilly
- Torps : I definitively love this idea, but some changes to be able to at least kill a cruiser size ship would be good I think
- High speed when cloaked : Just for one thing ! It's BBBBOOOORRRRRIIIINNNNNGGGGG to fly 30km at 250m/s ^^'
- No tank : One time you're talking about glass canon, then, you want to make it possible to fit a Shield extender or plate....

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 15:27:00 - [852]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 06/04/2009 15:32:44
Quote:
While you're tweaking bombers, can you guys PLEASE change bomb launchers to not take a launcher hardpoint!? Seriously, they are niche enough as is


I too would love it if a SB could mount its 3 launchers AND its bomb launcher. This little bit of versatility would make bomb deployment much more prevalent (and considering how easy it is to screw up with bombs, much hilarity would ensue). It would require careful balancing work on the stats for the SBs themselves and the bomb launcher.

Quote:
How many sodding TP's were you intending we bring.


Preferably one for each SB, especially considering that if you are clever they can also significantly increase bomb damage. Either that or bring a Rapier and realize that the bonus it has for target painting (along with its webbing abilities) now has increased value. In fact a Rapier and an Arazu flying with a small SB gang will now easily mean a lot of dead BS with little or no losses.

Quote:
You do not need range at all in fact.


No, you don't "need" range... but its a nice option to have. Particularly if the range is sufficient to put you outside of drone range. You can still play "blinkie" games if you like, and be effective, but that would require an emphasis on dampening your targets scan resolution. Perhaps, if covert gangs become prevalent, we would start to see BS mounting modules to extend drone range so that their drones have a chance of doing their job and auto defend against bombers attacking from outside their normal drone engagement range.






CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 15:39:00 - [853]
 

an update to the update to the update

Summary of all changes on or coming to sisi

something of a recap for those late to the thread


  • Stealth bombers are now focused on using torpedoes which results in their focus being more against bigger ships analogous to 'glass cannons'.

  • they can now equip and use covert ops cloaks so you can surprise your enemy

  • they have received fittings attributes increases to increase their possible fittings

  • bombs will cost around 900k to manufacture

  • bomb velocity has been increased to 2000 m/s



example nemesis description

Quote:

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

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

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

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




Changes being tested since last update which are coming to sisi soon

- torpedo flight time has been increased by 50% (13.5 sec) making the torpedo effective range 60k - 130k dependant on fitting.
- bomb forward velocity has been increased to 2,000 m/sec
- minor adjustments to fitting attributes

as ever, nothing is set in stone and subject to change

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:00:00 - [854]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 06/04/2009 16:02:27
Very Happy

Making the bonus to Torpedo Explosion Velocity "and" Torpedo Flight time, while retaining the Torpedo Velocity bonus is outstanding.


Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:01:00 - [855]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
an update to the update to the update

Summary of all changes on or coming to sisi

something of a recap for those late to the thread


  • Stealth bombers are now focused on using torpedoes which results in their focus being more against bigger ships analogous to 'glass cannons'.

  • they can now equip and use covert ops cloaks so you can surprise your enemy

  • they have received fittings attributes increases to increase their possible fittings

  • bombs will cost around 900k to manufacture

  • bomb velocity has been increased to 2000 m/s



example nemesis description

Quote:

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

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

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

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




Changes being tested since last update which are coming to sisi soon

- torpedo flight time has been increased by 50% (13.5 sec) making the torpedo effective range 60k - 130k dependant on fitting.
- bomb forward velocity has been increased to 2,000 m/sec
- minor adjustments to fitting attributes

as ever, nothing is set in stone and subject to change



Win.

That is all.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 16:13:00 - [856]
 

a few general responses to some suggestions

1. preference to peekaboo 'blink' over surprise warp in attacks

The change of the bomber to use the covert ops cloak was primarily done to allow for entry to the scene unnoticed as you can warp around cloaked. Because we focused on that tactic of true ambush and being able to be positioned correctly through gang mates or warping in and out to get the right position the drawback of this role was that once revealed, you are vulnerable for 15 seconds at least unless you're on bombing runs and warping immediately out assuming you have enemies focused on you.

Allowing both blink and ambush attacks would lead to a very overpowered bomber. It would be great if we could allow both strategies through module selection but this is not really possible currently so we favoured the possibilities the covert ops cloaks provides over 'blink' though think when combined with other tactics, you can still 'blink' successfully against a wide range of targets though it will be harder with the current changes we concur.


2. Allow us to not choose between a torpedo launcher and a bomb launcher

Bombs have already been boosted substantially to levels where you can almost mini doosmday quite effectively never mind out of the box tactics like use of void bombs on different targets.

Allowing bombers to have a large torpedo alpha and also additional large AoE bomb alpha is too much really at this stage though not ruling out the possibility in later revisits to the class.


3. Allow 3 bomb launchers or more!

Mini doomsdays would be fun wouldn't they Twisted Evil

We did consider this but it was way too evil with that many possible bombs in one go. As much as it is cool and would indeed be hilarious, bombs have been boosted enough for now.


Murashu
Liberal Frontier Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:20:00 - [857]
 

CCP Chronotis,

Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:21:00 - [858]
 

Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 06/04/2009 16:23:09
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
a few general responses to some suggestions

1. preference to peekaboo 'blink' over surprise warp in attacks

The change of the bomber to use the covert ops cloak was primarily done to allow for entry to the scene unnoticed as you can warp around cloaked. Because we focused on that tactic of true ambush and being able to be positioned correctly through gang mates or warping in and out to get the right position the drawback of this role was that once revealed, you are vulnerable for 15 seconds at least unless you're on bombing runs and warping immediately out assuming you have enemies focused on you.

Allowing both blink and ambush attacks would lead to a very overpowered bomber. It would be great if we could allow both strategies through module selection but this is not really possible currently so we favoured the possibilities the covert ops cloaks provides over 'blink' though think when combined with other tactics, you can still 'blink' successfully against a wide range of targets though it will be harder with the current changes we concur.






Then you started with a great Idea threw it by the window and made a weak ship into a useless ship. So much for the hope of proper tactics usage in this game....

Pity the dream survived so short time in front of the whinners that can only think on fighting at 100 + km....


WTS 9 hounds....

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:25:00 - [859]
 

Can't you create a new cloak module that ships that use cov ops cloak can also fit? But that cloak is a normal cloak but with 100% cloaked speed bonus?


That woudl solve all the issues... a normal cloak that can also only be fit by ships that use cov ops cloak but with different usage (no warp cloaked)

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 16:27:00 - [860]
 

Originally by: Murashu
CCP Chronotis,

Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?


Not ignoring anyone at all and have listened and read every post, especially the critics of the idea (remember listening is not the same as agreeing with). We just have not personally responded to every post and tend to respond generally to the most common suggestions.

re: bombs in low sec - not ruling it out in the future, but we have to think long and hard about the impact it has. Low sec has different rules and a different sandpit to null sec. Mixing weapons designed for null sec with low sec inst as trivial as it sounds though we can see why some of you would want it.


termite156
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:32:00 - [861]
 

Could you please show me the process for getting max range. Is that max skills plus rigs? Iam having issue getting that range in my calculations. If you are asking me to rig a glass cannon that is making the bomber well over 50 mil

termite156
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:36:00 - [862]
 

Edited by: termite156 on 06/04/2009 16:37:18
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Can't you create a new cloak module that ships that use cov ops cloak can also fit? But that cloak is a normal cloak but with 100% cloaked speed bonus?


That woudl solve all the issues... a normal cloak that can also only be fit by ships that use cov ops cloak but with different usage (no warp cloaked)



I think he is listening to you just not agreeing. This idea was brought forward and not sure why it didn't get look at more seriously. I guess giving the bomber option is not an option. As stated before we have the option of tech 2 vs tech 1 launchers.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:57:00 - [863]
 

I would suggest updating the original post, as apparently some people can't scroll up enough to read the revised stats.


Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 16:58:00 - [864]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
an update to the update to the update

Summary of all changes on or coming to sisi

something of a recap for those late to the thread


  • Stealth bombers are now focused on using torpedoes which results in their focus being more against bigger ships analogous to 'glass cannons'.

  • they can now equip and use covert ops cloaks so you can surprise your enemy

  • they have received fittings attributes increases to increase their possible fittings

  • bombs will cost around 900k to manufacture

  • bomb velocity has been increased to 2000 m/s



example nemesis description

Quote:

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

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

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

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




Changes being tested since last update which are coming to sisi soon

- torpedo flight time has been increased by 50% (13.5 sec) making the torpedo effective range 60k - 130k dependant on fitting.
- bomb forward velocity has been increased to 2,000 m/sec
- minor adjustments to fitting attributes

as ever, nothing is set in stone and subject to change



Sounds good, the only thing I disagree with is the Flight Time.
Torpedoes, even with these bonuses are going to be very very slow.
Launching them from say 130km if you implement the Flight Time bonus would probably take atleast a minute.
As such, there is no real scenario where using Torpedoes at that range is practical or useful.
However, even a webbed Battleship still moves.

Why not replace Flight Time with Explosion Radius, or just add the Flight Time bonus as Velocity bonus (making it 30%)?
The range at which you would *need* the Flight Time would make the travel time so incredibly large, that the target will most likely be half if not 99% dead before the Torpedoes hit.

I can understand not wanting 100km fast Torps, so why not add a penalty to Flight Time, and a boost to Velocity?
That way you have fast Torps at short range, and everyone is happy!

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.06 17:04:00 - [865]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Can't you create a new cloak module that ships that use cov ops cloak can also fit? But that cloak is a normal cloak but with 100% cloaked speed bonus?


That woudl solve all the issues... a normal cloak that can also only be fit by ships that use cov ops cloak but with different usage (no warp cloaked)


That is pretty much what we hinted at with the original answer but it is not as easy to do as it sounds. Ideally, we would let you choose between the improved cloak with 5 sec recloak delay and cloaked velocity and the covert ops cloak. For now it is a case of either/or and we chose the covert ops ability for the benefits it provides to surprise attacks as being better overall.


Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:07:00 - [866]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Can't you create a new cloak module that ships that use cov ops cloak can also fit? But that cloak is a normal cloak but with 100% cloaked speed bonus?


That woudl solve all the issues... a normal cloak that can also only be fit by ships that use cov ops cloak but with different usage (no warp cloaked)


That is pretty much what we hinted at with the original answer but it is not as easy to do as it sounds. Ideally, we would let you choose between the improved cloak with 5 sec recloak delay and cloaked velocity and the covert ops cloak. For now it is a case of either/or and we chose the covert ops ability for the benefits it provides to surprise attacks as being better overall.




Why not give Stealth Bombers a small velocity bonus then? Out of all the Frigates they are by far the slowest.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:11:00 - [867]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Can't you create a new cloak module that ships that use cov ops cloak can also fit? But that cloak is a normal cloak but with 100% cloaked speed bonus?


That woudl solve all the issues... a normal cloak that can also only be fit by ships that use cov ops cloak but with different usage (no warp cloaked)


That is pretty much what we hinted at with the original answer but it is not as easy to do as it sounds. Ideally, we would let you choose between the improved cloak with 5 sec recloak delay and cloaked velocity and the covert ops cloak. For now it is a case of either/or and we chose the covert ops ability for the benefits it provides to surprise attacks as being better overall.




Can at least you leave a paper note in your desk written "One day.. check again if now we can give SBombers a special cloak.." ?

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:14:00 - [868]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 06/04/2009 17:16:19
Quote:
I can understand not wanting 100km fast Torps, so why not add a penalty to Flight Time, and a boost to Velocity? That way you have fast Torps at short range, and everyone is happy!


No offense, but think you need to read the thread.

Most people were very, very much against operating at short range... mostly due to instant death by defending drones.

I also think you should actually test the proposed changes when they hit Sisi. I think you'll find the flight times comparable to current flight times with cruise missiles, or less, at those ranges... with considerably more damage done to large targets due to the Torp Explosion Velocity bonus.

The end result is your SB will preform very comparably to your SB now in terms of range and length of time to get damage on target (discounting current extreme range setups that are largely ineffective).
Your target selection with your main ordinance will be more restricted to large targets (as befits the "bomber" role), but you will deliver far more damage to those targets.

We won't even mention the secondary benefits of having a Covert Ops cloak.

All in all I would say this is pretty much on the mark, considering its proposed role.
If you want a ship whose main purpose is insta-popping unmoving frigates, I would suggest starting a movement to have one of the Pirate Faction frigates be redesigned to fill that role, or use one of the countless other ships in game that can do the same thing.


Murashu
Liberal Frontier Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:19:00 - [869]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Murashu
CCP Chronotis,

Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?


Not ignoring anyone at all and have listened and read every post, especially the critics of the idea (remember listening is not the same as agreeing with). We just have not personally responded to every post and tend to respond generally to the most common suggestions.

re: bombs in low sec - not ruling it out in the future, but we have to think long and hard about the impact it has. Low sec has different rules and a different sandpit to null sec. Mixing weapons designed for null sec with low sec inst as trivial as it sounds though we can see why some of you would want it.




Not all of us live in 0.0, I remember reading somewhere that only a small percentage of the EVE population has ever entered 0.0. Any changes you make to bombs will only effect a small portion of the SB population. The new SB on the test server is a serious nerf to my playstle and adds another month of skill training. Being able to deploy bombs in low sec would make up for the reduction in targets and keep me from selling my hounds.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:21:00 - [870]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Murashu
CCP Chronotis,

Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?


Not ignoring anyone at all and have listened and read every post, especially the critics of the idea (remember listening is not the same as agreeing with). We just have not personally responded to every post and tend to respond generally to the most common suggestions.

re: bombs in low sec - not ruling it out in the future, but we have to think long and hard about the impact it has. Low sec has different rules and a different sandpit to null sec. Mixing weapons designed for null sec with low sec inst as trivial as it sounds though we can see why some of you would want it.




You still havent explained, in full, the reasoning behind these views Crying or Very sad

It would be nice to have a recourse to the ubiquitous blob that casts a pall over Lowsec, as Anti-Blob tools go bombs would fit Lowsec well IMO; but i've already said that havent I Razz

Would you please (with a cherry on top) explain:

Your, or rather the Dev teams, reasoning in full as to why Bomb use isnt suitable for Lowsec. Further what reasons led the confining of Bombs to Lowsec on thier introduction to the game during design and why yu think that reasoning is still apropriate.

And

What other tools have you given us to combat blobs in Lowsec. Please list them; Smartbombs and Nano (now nerf'd!) not withstanding.

Lastly

Do you think the SB has an antiblob role via bomb use? Leading on: why should Lowsec not benefit from that?

Cheers, thankyou for trawling through so many replies Very Happy


Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : 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