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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

Rogerano
Minmatar
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:52:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
As things stand, I'd currently put money on my pest taking out half a dozen of these guys before going down - and the odds get so much worse the more BS's there are around.

-Liang


Provided the wreckage of the first SB didn't spiral out of control, crash into your pest's mainsail and set it on fire - thus resulting in a catastrophic chain of events culminating with you inadvertently driving right into the sun.

I have *SEEN* this happen. Minmatar ships are not for the weak of bowel.

Jit abot
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:24:00 - [152]
 

my 2 cents worth

30 second timer = dead SB imo. that is an aweful long time for anyone to target a SB which then pretty much makes it a sitting duck target (unless it warps off). maybe if you let them cloak even if someone is targeting you that would even it out. the target has 30 seconds to kill the bomber (more than enough time), or they dissapear and the pilot has to be able to choose the best time to allow him to survive that 30 seconds (takes skill).

to me, the whole idea of a stealth bomber is a ship that can sneak up on an enemy ship, unload a volley, recloak and repeat the process. Adding the cov ops cloak makes the sneaking up part better (since they dont have to anounce their arrival before cloaking first). 30 seconds recloak could work if you let them cloak while locked, otherwise, leave it as is.

my favorite sugestion on this thread so far was to leave the current bomber as is and add a new class of bomber that uses siege. that means you have 2 completely different tactics for bomber pilots to use, either snipe at 200kms, or get in close, risk all and serve up the punishment.

The Merc
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:29:00 - [153]
 

well, i am a bomber pilot and have been for a loong time.
CCP - if this happens grant me a 100% training time bonus to Torpedoes please.. i am soon training t2 cruise and as loong the bomber use cruise i will continue on that path.

thank you for messing with my skill training.
you realy make it a fun game to play
when we work hard for something and when we
archive our goal, u take it away.

Bombers where fine as they where.
if u know how to use them.
i feel they now have got
major nerf.

Some of it seems intresting but alot of it not.
i have got used to the stealthbomber as it is and loving it.
but you are changing things so badly i dont know if il be flying it anymore, it is a difference of tweaking it for the better than converting it to something totaly different.
Shocked Rolling Eyes


Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

omega322
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:40:00 - [154]
 

Just throwing my 2 cents in this discussion, I think to not only promote the playing of this ship, but also the training , for Covert Ops Skill Bonus, id should read as follows.

Covert Ops Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level
10% bonus to Torpedo thermal damage per level
-4 seconds reduction in Cloak reactivation delay per level

With it like this, It will push and promote players to train to level 5 , at level 5 the re-cloak time would sit at 10 seconds , vs level 1 which will re-cloak after a 26 second delay

Major Stallion
The Money Shot Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:49:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Holy Lowlander
wouldn't a cov ops cloak make them overpowerd ?


no it fulfils the STEALTH component of the ship class...jackass

Phaedra Nata
Posted - 2009.03.31 07:07:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Shun Makoto
I don't know what you're thinking Chronotis.

What is the Stealth Bomber's Real life counter-part? The Submarine.

What do the Subs of today do?

They breach the surface, launch ICBMs and then dive and run silent.

Uncloak | Launch Cruise Missiles | Recloak and move to another spot

THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL STEALTH BOMBER.

Stealth Bomber's already got Nerfed. DON'T NERF THEM MORE


/burns SB Changes


What does artillery do in real-life. Fire really long range. RL comparisons are dodgy as they don't have to factor in balance, and other concerns. That and they can be twisted in horrible ways. Like the B-2, what about that, they drop bombs and missiles right?! They don't go fully invisible to sight and radar though. Meh.

On top of that your comparison is most ironic. Even modern ICBM ballistic missile subs have torpedoes. Oh and there is that whole other class of submarines, called hunter-killer, that are pure torpedoes and stealth. So real life comparison-wise they

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2009.03.31 07:32:00 - [157]
 

Since it's clear that CCP is intent on switching to torps for the bomber and not fixing bombs, we might as well see if we can't find a niche for the bomber with that basic setup. The anti-BS role I think is unrealistic. It would take 20+ torp bombers to 1 volley a BS and let's face it, they wouldn't live long enough to get a second shot off at close range without losing half their fleet. So, I suggest we keep the torps but dump the anti-BS role and move to an anti-recon role as those they could realistically take on.

Give the bombers enough alpha with 1-2 BCU II's to one volley an untanked recon such as a falcon or pilgrim. I don't use torps so I don't know what kind of damage bonus that would require if any. It would require an explosion velocity and radius bonus to drop torps down to a 120m explosion radius and 200m/s explosion velocity to bring it inline with it's anti-recon role. Cloaked velocity needs to be in excess of 1km/s without filling the lows with overdrives so it can get into range of it's target without warping out first. A cov ops cloak would be useful but if it's that with a 10+ second recloak counter, then forget it I'd rather have the basic t2 cloak and instant recloak as it is now.

retro mike
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:04:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: retro mike on 31/03/2009 09:15:39
Edited by: retro mike on 31/03/2009 08:04:50

Yes, I can imagine CCP Chronotis as a kid. Nobody was allowed to play with his train set apart from him. Whats the point of leaving feedback if you dont listen.


There was nothing wrong with the old bomber that a boost to explosion velocity to cruise wouldnt fix, BUT NO!! He has been harbouring this stupid idea of changing the entire role of bombers and just wont let the idea go.

Dont be so bone-idle Chrono, if you want this type of ship create a new class and leave the bomber as it was.


grz

Footnote: Nothing personal Chrono, take it on the chin like a man Laughing

Stahanov Iv
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:07:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: retro mike
Edited by: retro mike on 31/03/2009 08:04:50

Yes, I can imagine CCP Chronotis as a kid. Nobody was allowed to play with his train set apart from him. Whats the point of leaving feedback if you dont listen.


There was nothing wrong with the old bomber that a boost to explosion velocity to cruise wouldnt fix, BUT NO!! He has been harbouring this stupid idea of changing the entire role of bombers and just wont let the idea go.

Dont be so bone-idle Chrono, if you want this type of ship create a new class and leave the bomber as it was.


grz



nothing personal but .... /SIGHN

Aron Palatine
GoonFleet
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:28:00 - [160]
 

Look, here's what we need;
Goal of the thread: To evaluate the proposed changes, provide constructive feedback, based on the Stealth Bomber class of frigates.
How do we do that? Here's how:
-What is the intended role of this ship?
-Chronotis "We are looking into improving and focusing bombers to be more bomber like with a more focused target group and bonuses which compliment this role much better."

-Why is that not going to work?
-We've already noted that multiple dozen times, these frigates will die WAY to fast, and a 'gang of SBs' is a worthless argument.
SO, the only way this class is going to ever get play is in group combat of some type, and that means small gang or fleet settings. In a small gang chances are VERY VERY good you'll want to be flying anything BUT a SB (as it is now) because an appropriately T2 fit cruiser will be better in every situation. That leaves fleet work.

-BUT, BUT, if 6 SBs...
-No, they won't, they'll still suck, just 6x more. If you don't know how 0.0 gangs roam then you shouldn't be in this conversation. As soon as there's a chance your gang is going to out gun the other gang, they cloak/SS/jump out/dock/log out.

Missiles will have a very very limited window where I could even conceive of them being more useful on a SB then a fleet BS/cruiser. That cuts it down to focusing on the bombs. Yes, there it is, the one answer to the original goal "more bomber like".
Look at the suggestion in my last post. The other part of the goal is to be a 'glass cannon frigate that has a more focused target group (ie Battleships)'. That's simply NOT going to happen and be viable. Any frigate that can stand it's own against a battleship is inherently unbalanced, period, so let's not try to make the square peg fit in the round hole for another 50 pages. That takes care of both of the 'goals' for this thread.

Instead of trying to move the SBs from cruise missiles to torps, Chronotis, move them to the BOMBS. FIX the bombs, and you fix this class. Just like "defender" missiles, bombs are just about as worthless right now.

Checklist:
1. Give CovOps Cloak
2. Keep Cloak Speed Bonus
3. Create Cruiser and Battleship Stealth Bomber Class ships.
4. Remove Missile Launcher from frigates, move to cruisers, possible citadel launchers with bonus' on the battleships.
5. Up bomb launchers to 2-3 per frigate?
6. Increase variety of bombs (FIX THE DAMN BOMBS ALREADY).

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:37:00 - [161]
 

Edited by: Thenoran on 31/03/2009 08:39:52
Originally by: retro mike
Yes, I can imagine CCP Chronotis as a kid. Nobody was allowed to play with his train set apart from him. Whats the point of leaving feedback if you dont listen.


There was nothing wrong with the old bomber that a boost to explosion velocity to cruise wouldnt fix, BUT NO!! He has been harbouring this stupid idea of changing the entire role of bombers and just wont let the idea go.

Dont be so bone-idle Chrono, if you want this type of ship create a new class and leave the bomber as it was.




Whether it's CCP or Chronotis, signed, no disrespect meant.

Why not modify Bomb Launchers to allow the firing of Bombs, Torps and Cruises?
Surely you can modify its capacity to suit all three needs.

If you want a Torp Bomber, give it to a new ship class, create a T2 Destroyer class Bomber which has some tank and less penalties to it to allow it to effectively combat Battleships.

Do not destroy the current Stealth Bomber, just give it a bonus or two (missile velocity, explosion velocity) and put your Torp idea into the new T2 Destroyer class or something.

That way we can have our cake and eat it too.

Artemis Dragmire
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:39:00 - [162]
 

I still think torp based SBs sound awesome.

I haven't run the numbers but a small gang of these could be quite a frightful thing indeed. Combined with a couple interceptors for target painting and webbing work and you could see 1-2 volley kills on anything BC or smaller.

Do want my klingon bird of prey style suicide glass cannons of death.

retro mike
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:40:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: The Merc
well, i am a bomber pilot and have been for a loong time.

thank you for messing with my skill training.
you realy make it a fun game to play
when we work hard for something and when we
archive our goal, u take it away.

Bombers where fine as they where.
if u know how to use them.
i feel they now have got
major nerf.

Some of it seems intresting but alot of it not.
i have got used to the stealthbomber as it is and loving it.
but you are changing things so badly i dont know if il be flying it anymore, it is a difference of tweaking it for the better than converting it to something totaly different.
Shocked Rolling Eyes


Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


this

I see I am not the only long-term bomber pilot that thinks this

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:08:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: retro mike
Originally by: The Merc

when we work hard for something and when we
archive our goal, u take it away.

Some of it seems intresting but alot of it not.
i have got used to the stealthbomber as it is and loving it.
but you are changing things so badly i dont know if il be flying it anymore, it is a difference of tweaking it for the better than converting it to something totaly different.
Shocked Rolling Eyes



this

I see I am not the only long-term bomber pilot that thinks this


Same here, although I can live with skilling torps V for the damage increase. The actual work is figuring out how to use it, this is what gives the advantage. High speed and quick recloak, great space denial weapon.

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:10:00 - [165]
 

Edited by: Gner Dechast on 31/03/2009 09:16:01
Originally by: Artemis Dragmire
I still think torp based SBs sound awesome.

I haven't run the numbers but a small gang of these could be quite a frightful thing indeed. Combined with a couple interceptors for target painting and webbing work and you could see 1-2 volley kills on anything BC or smaller.

Do want my klingon bird of prey style suicide glass cannons of death.



Yes, I imagine you want one... Rolling Eyes

This is the problem with this whole Torpedo change, not enough REAL piloting hours with the actual ship, too much fertile imagination that has not enough connection points to the game-reality.

"ZOOM ZOOM BOOOOM! Like that, yea awesome!"

PvP is 99% of all the stuff that happens BEFORE you press F1, F2, F3.... after that you are left usually with very few decisions anymore - mostly involving if to bail out.

Try to approach us with this in mind, EXPLAIN yourselves WHY do you think your new idea is good. EXPLAIN how and in what kind of an environment does it work.

That would take this a long way and would not make this sound like "we firmly believe that stabbing you guys in the back is a really good idea" which atleast good portion of people here more or less take it.

EDIT: While this quotes Artemis Dragmire, this is directed to CCP - sorry about the ambiquity.

retro mike
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:22:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Gner Dechast
Edited by: Gner Dechast on 31/03/2009 09:16:01
Originally by: Artemis Dragmire
I still think torp based SBs sound awesome.

I haven't run the numbers but a small gang of these could be quite a frightful thing indeed. Combined with a couple interceptors for target painting and webbing work and you could see 1-2 volley kills on anything BC or smaller.

Do want my klingon bird of prey style suicide glass cannons of death.



Yes, I imagine you want one... Rolling Eyes

This is the problem with this whole Torpedo change, not enough REAL piloting hours with the actual ship, too much fertile imagination that has not enough connection points to the game-reality.

"ZOOM ZOOM BOOOOM! Like that, yea awesome!"

PvP is 99% of all the stuff that happens BEFORE you press F1, F2, F3.... after that you are left usually with very few decisions anymore - mostly involving if to bail out.

Try to approach us with this in mind, EXPLAIN yourselves WHY do you think your new idea is good. EXPLAIN how and in what kind of an environment does it work.

That would take this a long way and would not make this sound like "we firmly believe that stabbing you guys in the back is a really good idea" which atleast good portion of people here more or less take it.

EDIT: While this quotes Artemis Dragmire, this is directed to CCP - sorry about the ambiquity.


This

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:23:00 - [167]
 

The Torp bomber will be of only use to large corporations/large alliances. They will be the only ones able to field enough to take out a battleship before dying.

The plan will remove some tactical/strategic situations for many small to medium corps/alliances.

What I'd do is suggest the Dev in the original post take an existing stealth bomber pilot and copy his skills. Then try the new bomber rules on sisi and see what his results are. I suspect you'd be dismayed how terrible it would actually perform with your suggestions.

To make the Torp Bomber work you'd have to give it a damage bonus to the torps, a velocity bonus to the torps, an explosion velocity bonus to the torps. Then it would act as an anti battleship platform. However giving it the bonuses that would be needed would make it overpowered.

Remember at the ranges you are putting in the stealth bomber will not live long.

If you just fixed the current bombs and improved the explosive velocity of cruise missiles you would have an effective anti blob ship as well as having an anti-battleship plaform. It would remain a more multi purpose vehicle

The more you narrow its role, the less likely it is to be used.

Biosman
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:39:00 - [168]
 

Sorry Chronotis but torps died back with Revelations release,I doubt anyone even uses them anymore.
this is what you need to do....
1.allow bombers to warp in cloaked,keep the 30 sec delay as we can align and warp off but only if....
2.you big up the cruise missile damage alpha strike which you need to be present for 100% dmg,ie
if you chicken out and warp off before they hit the target,the damage is way less.


Jalif
Minmatar
Snuff Box
Posted - 2009.03.31 09:59:00 - [169]
 

Sorry, but this is just ****. Cruise Missiles all the way.

If this chances make it to the server all I am going to do is fly a t1 frigate and jump into a gang of stealthbomber and laugh how I kill every 10sec a stealthbomber.

Improve the current stealthbomber with its cruise missiles. Cloaking velocity was great, additional cruise launcher would be great. And a fix to bombs (and the ablity to use them in lowsec ffs).

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:06:00 - [170]
 

Role Bonus 100% Torpedo Damage
Role Drawback 100% Increase in Seige Missile ROF

Role Play reason

Upgraded Stealth bombers with new computer systems and an enhanced armament system can now precisely fine tune explosion frequencies and direction of the explosion maximising all possible damage that could be squeezed out of a torpedo. Due to the smaller systems aboard the bomber however the time it takes to fully program the torpedo is longer than normal firings.

Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:12:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: Gner Dechast on 31/03/2009 10:17:38
After considerable thought (but obviously no testing yet) I am inclined to believe;


  1. This Covert Ops Cloak thing is not right. Not with the penalty suggested. Drop it.

  2. Chronotis' grudge with SB's lies within the range, hence the stubborn drive to REDUNDANT short range torpedoes. (the role he suggests IS already there in the bombs)

  3. Better compromise would be to penalise cruise missile range and...

  4. Creation of a new class is in order, IF Chronotis genuinely believes in point-blank range paper thing torpedo boat (if this was only to maim SB's and range nerf is acceptable, no new class is needed)

  5. There is no reason that I can come up with NOT to allow bombs in lowsec. Bomb damage is feeble in comparison to realistic ship ehp's and should be checked.

  6. To my knowledge, up to this date, CCP has not made a complete redesign on a ship that directly obsoletes customer skillpoints and this sets a baseline how will CCP deal with this kind of thing, if original idea is indeed pushed through



I have not been able to think any REALISTIC scenarios where the suggested torpedo bomber would be acceptable, let alone better choice than other alternatives. This is alarming, has anyone done this line of concept proofing?

One smart person in the old thread put up a question, why SB instead of Raven with a cloak for surprise DPS - and I cannot STILL find other answer than somewhat better survivability moving through hostile 0.0... And I believe THIS question has to be answered properly to justify torpedo SB at all.

I'm very concerned we're heading arse first up the tree now Confused

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:21:00 - [172]
 

Guys this is a company, think project management. They wouldn't assign the resources necessary to do code changes just for the SB users. So balance adjustments only, think of this what you want, but it's quite obvious between the lines.

So, no to bomb launcher overhaul, and obviously no new ships. No fixing of 0 damage after warping or cloaking.
Otoh, a very short delay between launch and delivery makes it unnecessary, so I see the reasons behind torps and torp speed at least. Chronotis had a good idea given the harsh preconditions! Some offensive posts above are done by persons not intelligent enough to read between the lines.

But why would you FORCE this?!

Chronotis: leave us free to choose! Make it two ships in one, avoiding the need for a new class:
- standard cloak + cloak speed bonus, OR covops cloak + reactivation delay
- old cruise bonus AND new torp bonus;
Choose modules at station, as usual. It's not like you can use these boni at the same time. It gives the ship flexibility, not more power.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:05:00 - [173]
 

humm i'd say
Quote:
Frigate Skill Bonus:
-20% targeting delay per level // *shrug* role bonus is already rather stuffed
+10% cloaked velocity per level // or missile velocity, but i dont see the "huge" need for 20->30km unless you really want them to go dampen the heck out of every bs/bc

Covert Ops Skill Bonus:
10% bonus to rate of fire of siege missile launchers per level
98% to 100% reduction of cloak CPU per level

Role Bonus:
-99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs
-99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use
-can fit cov op cynos


- just a plain, uncreative rof bonus...? yep, not-quite BS-like damage... they can still fit painters (and webs (and scan res dampeners)) in their meds - and work in teams (!). 20 torps per launcher and that rof should make for lovely hit&run
- just increase bomb damages across the board, no need to waste a ship bonus on a +/- 5% debate
- however, i still hate the idea of cov ops cloak + bombs in one package and i didnt expect you to give in on that Mad


Haramir Haleths
Caldari
Nutella Bande
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:36:00 - [174]
 

Once again .... the bomber was fine until Missile Nerf.
Give him back old Missile values and everything is fine.

Morpheus77
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:52:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: Mohenna
Guys this is a company, think project management. They wouldn't assign the resources necessary to do code changes just for the SB users. So balance adjustments only, think of this what you want, but it's quite obvious between the lines.

So, no to bomb launcher overhaul, and obviously no new ships. No fixing of 0 damage after warping or cloaking.
Otoh, a very short delay between launch and delivery makes it unnecessary, so I see the reasons behind torps and torp speed at least. Chronotis had a good idea given the harsh preconditions! Some offensive posts above are done by persons not intelligent enough to read between the lines.

But why would you FORCE this?!

Chronotis: leave us free to choose! Make it two ships in one, avoiding the need for a new class:
- standard cloak + cloak speed bonus, OR covops cloak + reactivation delay
- old cruise bonus AND new torp bonus;
Choose modules at station, as usual. It's not like you can use these boni at the same time. It gives the ship flexibility, not more power.

This works for everyone.

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:07:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Morpheus77
Originally by: Mohenna
Guys this is a company, think project management. They wouldn't assign the resources necessary to do code changes just for the SB users. So balance adjustments only, think of this what you want, but it's quite obvious between the lines.

So, no to bomb launcher overhaul, and obviously no new ships. No fixing of 0 damage after warping or cloaking.
Otoh, a very short delay between launch and delivery makes it unnecessary, so I see the reasons behind torps and torp speed at least. Chronotis had a good idea given the harsh preconditions! Some offensive posts above are done by persons not intelligent enough to read between the lines.

But why would you FORCE this?!

Chronotis: leave us free to choose! Make it two ships in one, avoiding the need for a new class:
- standard cloak + cloak speed bonus, OR covops cloak + reactivation delay
- old cruise bonus AND new torp bonus;
Choose modules at station, as usual. It's not like you can use these boni at the same time. It gives the ship flexibility, not more power.

This works for everyone.


Make it so!

Even if the bonus writeup might get a little complicated ...

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:08:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Ok, this is much better, but still needs some work.

Quote:
1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak

However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.


This is fair. My only concern here is getting de-cloaked by objects. With the current covops ships, you can almost immediately re-cloak as soon as you get out of range of the object, but bombers are going to be exposed for a full 30 seconds.

Would it be possible to code the delay so it is only triggered once you activate weapons? That way you're still forced to spend a full 30 seconds uncloaked if you want to engage a target, but don't run into problems moving around.


Quote:
2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes.

This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result.



I'm still not happy with this one. There are three fundamental problems here:


1) Torps are redundant. You already have a short-range, high-damage weapon: bombs. And it's even a weapon that is most effective against battleships. If you fix bombs correctly (most importantly, reduce the absurd cost), the only reason you'd ever need to use torps on a bomber is if you refuse to remove the 0.0-only limitation.

2) Bombers are paper. Survival odds for a stealth bomber are bad enough as it is, de-cloak within 24km of anything with guns and you'll be in a pod within seconds. The only defense a stealth bomber currently has is its long range, and now you want to take that away? I don't see bombers getting an AF's resists or an interceptor's speed without becoming too powerful, so they really need to keep their range.

3) Wasted skills suck. Since stealth bombers are the only cruise missile ship (or even missile ship at all) for a lot of players, changing them to use torps means wasted SP, especially if they trained T2 cruise.




But as I said in the other thread, there is a better way of doing this:


1) Introduce a special bomber-only weapon: covert warhead launcher. You can load one of two options:

a) 5x cruise missiles.

OR

b) 1x bomb.

The launcher itself has a very high ROF, meaning if you go with cruise missiles, you will have very good dps as long as your missiles last. However, there are two penalties:

a) Small capacity. You do huge dps, but only for a very short time.

b) Long reload time. As in, a full minute or so (ideally with just the standard 10 seconds if you reload out of combat to change missile types).

Both of these ensure that the stealth bomber is a proper ambush ship: you can do devastating damage in a very short amount of time, but if you don't plan your ambush carefully you're going to find yourself with a very angry target and nothing to shoot back with.


2) Fix bombs. Make them proper short-range AOE weapons. This means the following:

a) Reduce the cost to something comparable to interdictor bubbles. High enough that buying a stack of 500 is a noticeable dent in your wallet, but low enough to use without hesitation.

b) Remove the 0.0-only limit. No more toys for just the rich alliances. Do NOT, however, change CONCORD/sec hit/sentry response, bombs are use-at-own-risk, just like smartbombs and ECM bursts.

c) Balance their damage/blast radius/etc appropriately for their new cost (remember, you can launch up to three at once).




There. Bombers are now fixed, and everyone is happy.


totaly agreed. TRIPPLE SIGNED !!!!

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:13:00 - [178]
 

The reactivation delay will cause the stealth bomber to be dead pretty much all the time. Since they have to stay on the grid for their weapons to do damage, the additional delay is just like double penalizing them.

I just wish you'd go fly a stealth bomber and see how bad this torp design is, even with the covert ops cloak which is a good addition I just don't think this design can work and you'll see it used much less than it is now.

Or it'll just be used as a cloaking cheap ew platform. After all they can uncloak and target paint from range and cost a lot less than a recon. (Or even ecm, tracking disrupt etc).

Having actually flown Stealth Bombers most of the time the other fleet members kill the ship before my missiles hit if I'm at maximum range. (check BURN's killboard I have several kills in a hound...however all of them were as part of the fleet and most show me doing no damage and target painting....since the target went boom before my missiles hit). Oh and you'll note I do attack battleships with it.

What would I do differently with what you propose. Well the covert ops cloak is nice, but the range of the torpedoes is such that the advantage of the cloak will be mostly nullified. If the battleship has smartbombs or drones ready then you're gonna be pretty much toast, if he has a buddy then your in trouble.

Basically the only viable tactic would be to camp a gate, station, or belt and wait for a target of opportune. You can't alpha a battleship so you need to wait for a wounded one. So how often does a non repairing battleship randomly warp into a belt, gate or station and give you enough to time to close range and fire before leaving?

It will not be fun. Thus the stealth bomber will mostly become a curiosity. Some will use it just because but mostly it will see less and less use.

Remember with cruise missiles the range is an advantage for the attacker and defender. For the stealth bomber attacker he can stay away where he has a chance to survive. For the defender he can see the missiles coming and can warp off before they hit him (or mwd in opposite direction outrunning them). In fact the warping off bit happens quite a bit with all size of ships being fired on.

Mrs Snowman
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:21:00 - [179]
 

I agree with the covops change, however the pentalty should be more severe IMO. maybe a minute or even two.

Never quite understood the point of a stealth bomber that couldnt warp while stealthed.

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:26:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
Originally by: Morpheus77
Originally by: Mohenna
Guys this is a company, think project management. They wouldn't assign the resources necessary to do code changes just for the SB users. So balance adjustments only, think of this what you want, but it's quite obvious between the lines.

So, no to bomb launcher overhaul, and obviously no new ships. No fixing of 0 damage after warping or cloaking.
Otoh, a very short delay between launch and delivery makes it unnecessary, so I see the reasons behind torps and torp speed at least. Chronotis had a good idea given the harsh preconditions! Some offensive posts above are done by persons not intelligent enough to read between the lines.

But why would you FORCE this?!

Chronotis: leave us free to choose! Make it two ships in one, avoiding the need for a new class:
- standard cloak + cloak speed bonus, OR covops cloak + reactivation delay
- old cruise bonus AND new torp bonus;
Choose modules at station, as usual. It's not like you can use these boni at the same time. It gives the ship flexibility, not more power.

This works for everyone.


Make it so!

Even if the bonus writeup might get a little complicated ...


With a little bit of cunning, it can be kept quite short. Cruise and Torps should have an equal bonus, so that it's down to torps and cruise: bla bla.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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