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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

Talaan Stardrifter
Universal Exports
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:37:00 - [181]
 

I have started experimenting with the SB on Singularity, and will report my findings and opinions soon.

Initial Impressions (one hour gameplay):

I still would like to see the covops cloak implemented, but not with the apparent knee-jerk of 30second reactivation. (perhaps if there were a skill that decreased this... Covert Ops Ships?)

Cloaked Speed Bonus is almost mandatory at the ranges required for using Torpedoes.

Torpedoes are an interesting flavour, but I find that due to the requirements of having to cloak after every volley, the DPS is appalling. Although I am achieving 3,000hp raw damage (Lev 4 ALL skills)

On a Good Note, Missiles now successfully damage their targets even if their origin has cloaked.


More to come later...

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:01:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Talaan Stardrifter


On a Good Note, Missiles now successfully damage their targets even if their origin has cloaked.





well yes, because max skilled torpedo has flight time of 11 seconds. It was known before that for some reason you missiles go inactive 9 seconds after the launching ship cloaked or left grid.

L4 skills will give you about 10 seconds flight time so with all delays on cloaking and such, you should never realisticaly be able to cloak in time for the to go inactive :-)

so that is not fixed, just a side-effect of switch to torpedoes

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.31 13:02:00 - [183]
 

comments on keeping the stealth bomber in its current role

It is understandable that those of you who have found a good niche and strategy for the stealth bombers and sniping have met with some success and are unhappy with this being taken away. Although I have not personally replied to your criticisms and feedback, rest assured, we have been monitoring all the feedback (even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly!) and have taken your views into consideration and the impact these role changes cause for you.

However we still believe this new direction and role is far better than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role.

Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship with the addition of a covert ops cloak and high volley damage is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now.

Ship Bonuses on sisi

Sisi is being updated very regularly now and the final bonuses will be updated very regularly from now on so bear this in mind that this post or sisi may be out of sync.

Currently, the bombers should be getting a 20% torpedo damage and velocity bonus per level with 5% bomb damage and 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity. The main difference is the torpedo damage and velocity increase.

More comments to come soon.

Andrea Skye
Caldari
Heavy Risk...
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:20:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Andrea Skye on 31/03/2009 13:21:53
Bimber still need more range imo, max skills and rigs will set them at about 30-35km. Which is nothing at all with a ship so fragile.

50-60km would work, kinda.

Id say change the Explosion volicity to increased cloak velocity. And change the Torpedo velicty to about 20% per level. Which should set it somewhere around 50km. (EDIT: just read previous post, and they do have 20% velocity per level. Lol, talk about timing.)

Overall tho, i do like this idea, i love bombers but never really had a use for my hound :P

Sundogg
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:20:00 - [185]
 

NO!

This won't work, This will make another completely useless ship, or novelty item only. Drop your 30sec delay either completely or to something more reasonable, 3-5 MAX and allow the pilot to CHOOSE cruise or torpedo and you might, just maybe have something slightly more viable then it is in it's current form. If not, just leave it alone.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:30:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
comments on keeping the stealth bomber in its current role

It is understandable that those of you who have found a good niche and strategy for the stealth bombers and sniping have met with some success and are unhappy with this being taken away. Although I have not personally replied to your criticisms and feedback, rest assured, we have been monitoring all the feedback (even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly!) and have taken your views into consideration and the impact these role changes cause for you.

However we still believe this new direction and role is far better than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role.

Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship with the addition of a covert ops cloak and high volley damage is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now.

Ship Bonuses on sisi

Sisi is being updated very regularly now and the final bonuses will be updated very regularly from now on so bear this in mind that this post or sisi may be out of sync.

Currently, the bombers should be getting a 20% torpedo damage and velocity bonus per level with 5% bomb damage and 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity. The main difference is the torpedo damage and velocity increase.

More comments to come soon.



I read this:

We are turning the stealth bomber into another blobing ship (numbers are required now). Bombs will continue to suck.

------------------

can't help it but sometimes you just happen to make stupid changes right at the time when I cancel my subscription for RL reasons ... call it luck or whatever you like ... just one less incentive to ever come back ...

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:39:00 - [187]
 

"even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly"

Hehe. No wonder some of these whines have sounded the same. Very Happy

It's sounding at least workable to me. Bombers have always required groups in order to be effective (except versus solo idiots). Nothing changing there, and at least torps make more sense than cruises. I've already figured out some potentially sweet use cases for these new toys.

... but please take a look at the grids on these things, and at least let them fit a normal torpedo loadout plus some small passive tank (shield extender / plate) without grid modules. They are weak enough as is, needing to use some lows for fitting modules adds insult to injury.


Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:40:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 13:44:59

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
comments on keeping the stealth bomber in its current role

It is understandable that those of you who have found a good niche and strategy for the stealth bombers and sniping have met with some success and are unhappy with this being taken away. Although I have not personally replied to your criticisms and feedback, rest assured, we have been monitoring all the feedback (even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly!) and have taken your views into consideration and the impact these role changes cause for you.

However we still believe this new direction and role is far better than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role.

Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship with the addition of a covert ops cloak and high volley damage is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now.

Ship Bonuses on sisi

Sisi is being updated very regularly now and the final bonuses will be updated very regularly from now on so bear this in mind that this post or sisi may be out of sync.

Currently, the bombers should be getting a 20% torpedo damage and velocity bonus per level with 5% bomb damage and 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity. The main difference is the torpedo damage and velocity increase.

More comments to come soon.



What part of we don't want this change do you not understand? Unless you can magically give us enough tank to stay in close range this ship will be useless. It has nothing to do with the change in game play, if it was that simple it wouldn't be that big of a deal. This change is death the stealth bomber, plus HACs should have anti-battleship role, not a paper thin frigate.

Again, it's not the the game play change that's the issue, it's the we will NOT live to use this awesome new torp change Rolling Eyes. Read that again and again. You can not stick a NO tank ship into close combat with one of the hardest hitting style ships in the game and expect good things from it. Well, unless we can insta-pop and BS we run into. The "damage" you are adding is laughable at best, it should not take and entire fleet of SBs to drop a BS, maybe 4 MAX with 2 MAX volleys (now adjust the damage numbers to match that and add tank to the SB and come back to us).

SBs should be the anti-support/recon/HAC platform not lol anti-BS that's just stupid.

Pedro Sangre
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:42:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
comments on keeping the stealth bomber in its current role

It is understandable that those of you who have found a good niche and strategy for the stealth bombers and sniping have met with some success and are unhappy with this being taken away. Although I have not personally replied to your criticisms and feedback, rest assured, we have been monitoring all the feedback (even from the player using all his alts to voice his concerns repeatedly!) and have taken your views into consideration and the impact these role changes cause for you.

However we still believe this new direction and role is far better than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role.

Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship with the addition of a covert ops cloak and high volley damage is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now.

Ship Bonuses on sisi

Sisi is being updated very regularly now and the final bonuses will be updated very regularly from now on so bear this in mind that this post or sisi may be out of sync.

Currently, the bombers should be getting a 20% torpedo damage and velocity bonus per level with 5% bomb damage and 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity. The main difference is the torpedo damage and velocity increase.

More comments to come soon.



Is it on SiSi now? Or when will it hit?

Can you fix warp speeds while you're at it? :) :)

You know, the part where intys and BS warp almost the same over short distances due to accel / decel time dominating? I think that would go a long way to making it easier to work with the new mechanic...

Captator
Perditus Peregrinus
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:45:00 - [190]
 

This is better than the last idea (on the most part)

Could you not stick something like a 300% damage bonus to torps on the non level dependant bonuses, along with quadrupling the ROF (so same dps, 4x volley), otherwise what kind of numbers are you looking at to be able to destroy a BS?

My thinking is that it should take lower isk cost in fitted bombers (t2 mods t1 rigs) to destroy a fitted BS (t2 mods t1 rigs) as you have an increased pilot cost. If it takes more isk in bombers, then you might as well bring different ships, and increase your EWAR/damage/pilot ratio.

This means that you should be looking at 3-5 bombers depending on skills to take down a BS. You can balance them against smaller ships by playing around with torp velocity again, perhaps giving it a lower bonus.

I also would like to see the cloaked velocity bonus making a come back if possible, as it would be nice to get the bomber out of dodge after dropping a bomb. Perhaps you could make it another role bonus?

I realise I just proposed adding several role bonuses, but I think that unless these things have a lot of volley damage, they are pointless.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:47:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Vall Kor

What part of I don't want this change do you not understand?


Fixed it for you.

A gang of these things will be pretty evil versus a battleship. It will take a small while before the bs manages to lock even the first one, and putting a heavy neut on them won't stop the damage. If they are close enough, no battleship weapons will hit.

So the only thing bombers will have to fear from that bs are drones. Which is fair enough, a bs needs to have some defenses left.

If they can use covops cloak, they'll be a nice scout + dps addition to pretty much any lowsec gang.

Solo, they'll suck of course. But so do bombers currently, too.

Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:52:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 13:56:03
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Vall Kor

What part of I don't want this change do you not understand?


Fixed it for you.

A gang of these things will be pretty evil versus a battleship. It will take a small while before the bs manages to lock even the first one, and putting a heavy neut on them won't stop the damage. If they are close enough, no battleship weapons will hit.

So the only thing bombers will have to fear from that bs are drones. Which is fair enough, a bs needs to have some defenses left.

If they can use covops cloak, they'll be a nice scout + dps addition to pretty much any lowsec gang.

Solo, they'll suck of course. But so do bombers currently, too.



Because a BS can't carry light drones? And you're correct I and a lot of others do not want this change. Changing my statement does not make it any less true. We had 15 pages of us telling the devs this is a dumb idea, T1 cruises can kill a BS and live to tell about it. A gang of this new gimped SB will not be able to tank a single drone before you have to warp. Most of us want the option to use either cruise or torps, not a more gimped weapons system.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:54:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Vall Kor

Because a BS can't carry light drones?


Ummm, what? I just said that drones are pretty much the only defense a bs has against the new bombers.

Chinchek
khanid industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:54:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Chinchek on 31/03/2009 14:05:55
Edited by: Chinchek on 31/03/2009 13:54:54
Please CCP do not majorly alter the current role of the Stealth bomber. I just love the fun i have with the SB, love dodging inties, love annoying and popping falcons (greatly turns the battle), love sitting 190+km away from target using distance as a survival, i especially love the adrenaline rush you get by popping your target and skillfully avoiding hostiles.... Do not take this away from me (us), basically taking our favorite toys away!

edit: Also, i got specialized cruise lvl 5, and you want me to throw this away and start months work of siege lvl 5???? no thank you

IMO** what would make this the perfect ship is bring back the cruise missile bonus and possibly add the increased cloak velocity.

MrFahrenheit
Gallente
Stimutac
Sanctimony of Bellum
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:57:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Andrea Skye

Id say change the Explosion volicity to increased cloak velocity.



Tbh if we are to have a 30sec cloak delay, increased cloak velocity isnt going to help us survive any longer, sure it will get us into position on a target that little bit quicker, but the whole point in the cloaked velocity was to get relocated quicker once you recloak after your initial attack.

Seeing as its going to be a case of uncloak, lock, fire, warp out I would rather have the extra exp velocity.

As for making Sb more effective against larger targets, can I post this link Linky as proof of allready effective SB pwnage. YARRRR!!

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:00:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Vall Kor

Because a BS can't carry light drones?


Ummm, what? I just said that drones are pretty much the only defense a bs has against the new bombers.



and which BS does NOT have a drone bay for at least 5 mediums ?

Ilija Veliki
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:00:00 - [197]
 

stealth bombers r frigate sized ship, and their role is to be anti-frigate sized ship...
their secondary role should be anti-anysize ship....... and now u want to make it anti bs?
why don't u put like citadel torpedo's and make it anti-capital ship, since it will be more useless then this idea ....

......

Nagatok
PROGENITOR CORPORATION
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:05:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Nagatok on 31/03/2009 14:07:45
well....CCP gave it a good effort and are trying to compromise here with us on the stealth bomber....CCP if you want my advice dont make these changes to torps....your putting a ship with less than 1k in HP (i dont think its effective HP is even over 1k) into close combat with big bruiser ships...lets not also forget that the current bonuses of the SB wont enable it to actually kill a BS...raw damage its impressive in some ways....then take 50% or generally more off for resistances and then the BS still has a considerable tank its NOT gonna work your going to be dead long before you break the BS tank...i can think of a few ways to solve this issue...

1) reduce the sig radius of the stealth bomber even further....this should help with the amount of time a stealth bomber can remain uncloaked and still fire since it will take a BS considerable time to lock it.

2) make the stealth bomber able to slap a BS in 3 volleys or less. and yes that would be overpowered.

3) Extend the Range of the torpedo's maybe as a racial bonus? (not sure if that wud actually help really since if u get too far turrets end up hurting you)

4) Lower the ROF so that the DPS can be put up so your not alpha striking a BS but you can launch a considerable amount of volleys.

5) Drop the Entire Idea go back to the beginning and do what we all would have done...fix the missiles and give the stealth bomber a damage boost.

Hesperius
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:09:00 - [199]
 

Is there any reason in the world you can not add this ship to the current line up? Give the current one the Ishukone cammo look to fit in with the snipe role like the Harpy, and the new one the totally worthless anyone who knows better won't fly it Lai Dai orange skin?

If anyone actually thinks this is a good idea, Ill be on Singularity so you can prove to me how awesome it is.

Alastairon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:28:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Vall Kor

What part of I don't want this change do you not understand?

Fixed it for you.


No, he had it right. This is a terrible, terrible change.

1.)The flight times on torpedoes, at lvl 5's across the board, give the missile a MAX range of 50km, at which point you will have had to be uncloaked for so long that you are dead long, long before your missiles hit. This is in DIRECT correlation to the missile velocities of torpedoes. They simply, even at 20%/level, do not move quickly enough to a.) catch a MWD BS and b.)do not have a long enough flight time to make use of a higher missile velocity to chase DOWN a BS moving under AB/MWD.

1a.) Given the flight times currently proposed, you are REQUIRING that the SB come within scram range with a too-long recloak timer and subject itself to at least 4-5 seconds of being locked by a BS to ensure that the missiles hit, if not longer, given cloaking delays, lock times, firing, waiting for it to hit, then warping off the grid. In a ship with ~1500hp, you are, quite literally, ensuring that that the Stealth Bomber is now a T2 Suicide Ganker. Given the train times for the required skills (torps, covops, etc) I cannot see anyone honestly flying one again.

2.)The idea of a 30 second cloaking delay REQUIRES bombers to load/unload the grid CONSTANTLY, which will do NOTHING but make them useless in any sort of fleet engagement, which is exactly what this change seems to be geared towards. Chronotis, you are limited by the mechanics of the game you are building for, please remember that. You cannot ask pilots in a ship with ~1500hp to load/reload the grid OR stay uncloaked without SIGNIFICANT defensive measures for 30 seconds. That's signing their death warrant. Any BS with ~200mm scan res will be able to lock the SB in about 7 seconds. That means your cloaking delay is 23 seconds too long. Keep the cloaking delay down to approximately 7 seconds (with level 4 skills) and we can live with your "unique" approach to what you feel should be the Stealth Bomber's role.

3.) Your continual discussion on this anti-BS platform repurposing is perplexing, to say the least. I cannot, and I have honestly tried to, grasp this idea and embrace it; but I find myself coming up empty on new tactics for the uses of such a bomber. Historically speaking, the WW II German U-boat, by rights the forefather and basis for the Stealth Bomber, was primarily an anti-cargo and cruiser-class attack ship. It was never intended to go after anything larger than a cruiser as it's vulnerabilities do not lend itself towards fighting something so well armored or with that level of attack capability. This has been the same in EVE. Now, you tell us we've got it all wrong, and history does, too. Okay, fine. So be it. However, even a wolfpack (the tactic USED by the U-boats for taking larger targets) was 3-5 subs, not the 10-20 that would be required for taking down the average battleship in EVE. Furthermore, given that we have warp capabilities in EVE that are unavailable in a wet navy, you would require a frigate-sized battlegroup in order to hold the BS in place with an interceptor, an electronics superiority platform to keep the BS from targeting the stealth bombers with their 30 second decloak timers as they will HAVE to stay decloaked long enough for at least 2 volleys, if not more. In short, this is untenable given flight times required by torpedoes and the unrealistically long decloak time required and the damage output of a stealth bomber with a torpedo payload.

4.) Bombs. If you want Bombers in a fleet fight, they need to be able to EFFECTIVELY use bombs. This means either multiple bomb launchers may be fit or a SIGNIFICANT bonus to their damage in order to make a small squad of them (read: 3-5) to make a meaningful dent into the enemy fleet's total HP. Without this, you have the same issues you have now: no one will fly them.

Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:35:00 - [201]
 

That pretty much summed it up. Now will the devs actually listen? I guess 15 pages asking for this not to happen wasn't enough.Shocked

retro mike
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:37:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
comments on keeping the stealth bomber in its current role

CCP Chronotis

It is understandable that those of you who have found a good niche and strategy for the stealth bombers and sniping have met with some success and are unhappy with this being taken away.


On two counts I and others are furious.

1 Prior to the missile nerf, we had a quirky little ship with great alpha damage that we had developed tactics and trained skills for. Heaven forbid the medium/small ship that didnt take the bomber seriously!

2 CCP are trying to change the role of a shiptype that real Bomber pilots dont want changed. This is setting a worrying and menacing precedent.

How to resolve this?

Keep the existing bomber, buff its explosion velocity and call it a Stealth Precision Bomber. This keeps bomber pilots happy

Introduce a new ship class (kessie based) with CCPs proposed Torpedo setup and call it the Stealth Heavy Bomber This keeps everyone else happy.


Mr Chrono there are a lot of unhappy people that you just cant ignor.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:38:00 - [203]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 14:46:05
Originally by: Alastairon

1.)The flight times on torpedoes, at lvl 5's across the board, give the missile a MAX range of 50km, at which point you will have had to be uncloaked for so long that you are dead long, long before your missiles hit. This is in DIRECT correlation to the missile velocities of torpedoes. They simply, even at 20%/level, do not move quickly enough to a.) catch a MWD BS and b.)do not have a long enough flight time to make use of a higher missile velocity to chase DOWN a BS moving under AB/MWD.



Why on earth would anyone decloak from 50km and launch torps? That makes no sense.

You sneak up close, 5km - 10km or so. Easy enough, with covops cloak. Then you decloak, scramble and let fly torps. And of course you don't do this solo, that would be idiotic. You do it as part of a gang. Perhaps as the initial tackler, perhaps as one of 5-10 bombers.

Due to being close, you're immune to battleship weapons. Neuts don't hurt you. The only thing you need to worry about are drones...

..and by the time that bs has managed to lock you (will take quite a while), launch drones and set them on you, your gang will already have done quite a bit of damage. Unless you're going up against a Dominix, those light drones will take a while to chew through your armor, especially if you fit some passive tank. If your gang has some anti-drone weapons, all the better. You can also field some ewar in those nice mids.

I can see these things being absolutely lethal in the right hands.

Sure, it has risks. Wouldn't be interesting if not.

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:43:00 - [204]
 

Look, guys. Ever since the QR update when missiles got changed, they said they wanted Stealth Bombers to have a new role. At this point I don't think "Please leave my Stealth Obama ALOOOOOOOOONE!" is constructive feedback. It's not going to happen. Change is coming, in a context where CCP appears to be generally trying to reduce encounter ranges (my guess is because of the speed changes from QR).

I liked the old "anti-frigate from across the grid" role for the SB, but it took something of a hit with the QR expansion and it's never coming back in its original form because it never made any sense, fun though it was. Anti-frig platforms are a dime a dozen in this game anyway. Glass-cannon DPS, not so much -- they've been reducing various alpha-strike and quick-damage platforms for as long as I've been playing. The SB needs some sort of higher DPS regime than it currently has. I was expecting, and would have been delighted by, a minor tweak to its cruise bonuses; but a massive boost against large and dangerous targets, along with better ability to hunt them and pick your battles, is far more entertaining. Brutally dangerous? Yup, to pilot and target alike. Very EVE-like.

The real losers here will be solo / unsupported battleship pilots with ships not fit for defense against this platform. You will hear some epic whines from mission runners about the new SB -- if it goes live in something like its currently suggested form, there will be nerf threads.

MrFahrenheit
Gallente
Stimutac
Sanctimony of Bellum
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:45:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi


A gang of these things will be pretty evil versus a battleship.




Maybe, but honestly who is going to bring a gang of the new SB to such a fight?
There are far easier ways to skin a cat tbh.

As I read more into these changes (between the lines so to speak) all I see is that they are trying to make SB less annoying to other players by making them far more vunerable, as I see it they are going to be used even less in fleet's simply because there will be better ship classes out there that will be more effective against larger ships.
That and the price of these one shot disposable SB's will be far from cost effective.

While some people in this thread are comparing current SB to submarines and B2 bombers, IMHO they are much more like snipers tbh,
A sniper will sit watching its target, wait for the right moment fire once at a target of high value and then relocate.
for me this is the fun that current SB offer.

Surely we can have some middle ground here whereas by keeping the current cloaking mechanism we can keep this current Strategy (and fun, skillfull use of a craft) while also having the closer 50k torp range and giving the enemy a better chance at decloaking destroying the SB.
This way SB are no longer as annoying while keeping the fun factor for SB pilots.

Chinchek
khanid industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:48:00 - [206]
 

lets say CCP implements this change, SB's will need a warp in point, move towards target, align, decloak around 5km, lock, fire torps, wait till hit, warp off... wait till you can recloak, warp back in the battlefield (hope there isnt a bubble and your warp in point is still alive), move towards target, algin... and repeat. (and hope on your second try there isnt a scrammer waiting for you).......

Big waste of time, my cruise/range SB will be a lot more useful...

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:49:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: MrFahrenheit
Originally by: Alex Harumichi


A gang of these things will be pretty evil versus a battleship.




Maybe, but honestly who is going to bring a gang of the new SB to such a fight?



Valid question. Smile Not sure, but I suspect that covops cloak ability move around invisibly will be pretty enticing. You can scout *and* do nice dps, and even just 5 of these already amounts to pretty high total dps. You're not restricted to ambushes anymore, you can actively scout around for suitable targets, and you can move around pretty damn fast.

Sounds good to me, for a lot of lowsec war scenarios, at least.

Bull Frog
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:49:00 - [208]
 

It seems to me just about every post on here that says this is a bad change, is saying so because they can't stand toe to toe in a fight. Well a SB shouldn't be able to, you have stealth. You need to use tactics. If you can't take the tools that are given and make them work some how because you don't have exactly what you want or think you need, then perhaps that ship class is beyond your skill level. Some tactics will require teamwork, thus why SB's should be poor 1v1 ships, its a team asset. I for one am not crazy about the change, but I see it as an interesting challenge. Bring it on CCP and lets see how it plays.

Now that we have a cruiser variant with the recons, and the Black ops BS, when are we going to see a BC Stealth ship? maybe one with 3 or 4 bomb launchers? That would be a good ship for the people who have no team. Wink

Hesperius
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:50:00 - [209]
 

Edited by: Hesperius on 31/03/2009 14:50:43
Rookies who can not fly SB or do not take the time to learn to fly SB ask for silly things for the SB in the Features and Requests forum. There are actually A LOT of these people. So it would seem to me that CCP sees this, more so than people actually using them in game, and think that they need a change.

It sucks that they are going to make people who use them not want to use them, and the people who thought that they would use them "if"... find out that their idea was not so good after all. Then perhaps one day someone in the features request forum will say "Hey can we make SB useful and put cruise missiles on them?" and perhaps there will be someone new at CCP who thinks this is a new idea the cycle begins again.

Alastairon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:51:00 - [210]
 

Part II

The Solution to CCP Chronotis' problem

The solution is much, much simpler than people are making it out to be.

1.) Covops cloak is a great, great step forward for bombers and solves ALL of their current issues. This should be implemented, regardless of any other changes. HOWEVER there is no concievable way that the 30 second delay can be coupled to it, like an albatross around the neck of the bomber. As in my previous post, the recloak time needs to be reduced to approximately 7 seconds in order for this to be a viable alternative to the current Improved Cloaking Device II. Else you are dooming Bombers not to commit, but to loading/reloading the grid continually as they warp out, wait 20 seconds, cloak and warp back in. This does not, I repeat, does NOT, force the bomber to commit. It only forces the bomber off-grid for far-too-long in order to re-engage properly. And please, do not disable warping for 30 sec after cloak deactivation, as that will seal the coffin entirely. I understand you want a bomber to commit to a fighting action, but that is counter to the very nature of the stealth bomber and it's U-Boat heritage.

2.) I cannot see that you will leave this torp idea alone, as bogglingly strange as it is, so I will instead suggest that you increase missile velocity and flight time, using a role bonus for the Bomber, starting at 40%/level. You must understand, as you limit the flight time so drastically, you must give the bomber the ability to engage from OUTSIDE scram range, with enough of a distance buffer that the bomber has the chance to escape in lieu of cloaking. You cannot take away all the advantages of the bomber without giving a few back to it. Else, they will very soon vanish entirely from hangars. Were you to give a missile flight time, as well, it is possible that the bomber regain half it's range and allow it to be able to engage at approximately 90km instead of less than 40, thereby granting it some measure of survivability towards a BS.

2a.) BS do not fly alone. This is the rule of 0.0. Never fly alone. In limiting the bomber as harshly as you are speaking about, you are restricting it to solo targets in a several-bombers-on-one-BS scenario. I have never seen this, ever, on TQ, save for a BS moving along a JB chain. Where there are POS guns. And the new bomber has a 30 sec recloak time? One death warrant, coming right up.

In summary: do away with the recloak penalty you are speaking of and significantly bump the velocity and flight times of torps if you persist in this idea. But bear in mind that a torpedo launching frigate is doing a disservice to both the ship-class and the payload, as you are having to make such significant modifications to both as to render each unrecognizeable to the rest of the community.

My 0.02 ISK,

Al


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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