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 : ... 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 ... : last (57)

Author Topic

Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:11:00 - [571]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

a quick update on some changes we will test on sisi over the weekend.

Following feedback and internal playtesting we are looking at a reasonable compromise between the glass and the cannon part of the stealth bombers. Essentially we are looking to decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds coupled with a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu) to allow some easier and better fits.

The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.

In addition the agility as been fine tuned as mentioned by Nozh in his post so you should find your align and warp times much faster as well now.

This change should be on sisi after it is rebooted next (which means the changes might not appear until tomorrow)

Please keep the feedback coming!


I am Eigof Tahr and I approve this message.
I would prefer a 5s cloaking delay like all the other covert cloakers have, but a 15s is ok. Maybe make it skill based on their covert ops level? -5s for every level of covops?

People, please stop asking for another bomber type or dual roles, they said no, drop it.

Enraged Stoat
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:20:00 - [572]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The role of a stealthy glass cannon is to ambush and deliver a large amount of firepower through volleys of torpedoes onto large targets. To facilitate this new role better, the bonuses and some of the attributes are being changed appropriately.
.....
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.



Nobody but the most stupid FC fields a fleet consisting entirely large targets that have nothing fitted to take out smaller targets. All this will do is ensure SB's are wiped off the battlefield about 20 seconds after they appear and launch their alpha volley.

Yay. More nerfs removing the tactics and suprise and replacing them with mindless 'we have more dps than you' slugfests. Yawn, thanks. Why can't you just leave these interesting ship specializations alone?

First you plan to nerf ECM specialization to make ECM ships have no advantage over any other ship with a couple of mods fitted. Now you plan to nerf the ONE good thing about SB's, their ability to pop up do damage and hide again.

Way to turn Eve into a WoW type grind!

Mahai Ano
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:25:00 - [573]
 

Edited by: Mahai Ano on 02/04/2009 19:27:39
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak


Well, without this they would are not really stealth bombers.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

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

\(O_O)/ wuzzah!
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

3. Bombers will gain bonuses to torpedoes

Yet again, they should be like this.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

4. They will still use bombs

OK!

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:28:00 - [574]
 

1. Make bombs un-stupid.
2. Allow for cruise or torps.
3. Keep cloak the way it is.

And this is a big one:

4. Reduce the sig radius on bombers below that of ceptors. Why? They are STEALTH BOMBERS. The ship you are looking for is failing because stuff can lock it stupidly fast. Make it harder to lock, make it STEALTH for pete's sake! (Who's pete?)

The bombing part of bombers isn't broke, it's the STEALTH. Cloaks aren't the only way to be stealthy after all.


So ship bonuses would be:
frig: Racial damage to bombs, cruises, and torps. And Velocity bonus, forget the stupid explosion velocity, if you are doing this without a tackle you are doing it wrong.

Cov ops: cloaked velocity bonus, sig radius reduction. (And make it good enough to get a shot off over an average frig. So anti frig ships with sensor boosters could catch it. Sensor booster counter to Stealth. GASP.)

Charlie chop
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:28:00 - [575]
 

just allow the sb to shoot a little farther and dont loose the 20%.... and there you go perfect...a lot better than the fist one

Vall Kor
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:31:00 - [576]
 

Edited by: Vall Kor on 02/04/2009 19:35:37
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

a quick update on some changes we will test on sisi over the weekend.

Following feedback and internal playtesting we are looking at a reasonable compromise between the glass and the cannon part of the stealth bombers. Essentially we are looking to decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds coupled with a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu) to allow some easier and better fits.

The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.

In addition the agility as been fine tuned as mentioned by Nozh in his post so you should find your align and warp times much faster as well now.

This change should be on sisi after it is rebooted next (which means the changes might not appear until tomorrow)

Please keep the feedback coming!


Any chance on getting an RoF bonus added? I think this will help with the alpha damage loss. I think being able to uncloak and apply meaningful damage before you're locked or back up arrives is something that needs to be thought about.


Edit: Like 1% - 2% RoF per cov-ops level. I'm under the impression the new SB isn't meant to be in an extended engagement, so the gang will need to be able to kill what ever they are after quickly and then vanish into the stars..

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:35:00 - [577]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 02/04/2009 18:54:12
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Please keep the feedback coming!



Honestly? Terrible change. The cloak delay is a non-issue. Bombers are much better with the full 20% damage and 30 second delay, especially since in most cases, you'll have to stick around for 30 seconds to get the kill anyway.

Remember, these are gang ships. Since you now have a covops cloak and are welcome in recon gangs, your recons should take care of keeping you alive. All you need is the fitting increase to allow enough tank to handle drone aggro and/or random stray shots.


Consider the case of an Arazu + 2x bomber, a fairly reasonable cloaking gang for hunting ratters/missioners/solo Pvpers/etc in hostile territory. Consider a good potential target, a Raven ratting in a belt. How does this fight go?

Arazu tackles and cripples the Raven's lock range. Bombers de-cloak and open fire from outside of the Raven's new lock range. Your ~1500 dps total isn't going to pop the Raven in under 30 seconds, so you're in it for the long fight. In this case, an extra 25% damage is MUCH more important than the ability to re-cloak immediately.

The scenario of decloak -> shoot -> recloak simply isn't very plausible in the real world. Don't nerf bomber DPS just to give people false confidence in something they simply aren't going to be able to use.


This argument holds water when going after a lone target. However, it begins to leak if more than one hostile is in the area. However, I do agree that a sig reduction would be better overall. I'll have to do some testing.





Number of targets changes nothing. The only way to get enough damage to kill your target before the 30 seconds are up is to have such a huge blob that it doesn't matter what ships you bring, because you're going to win anyway. And in that case, you can just decloak while aligned, and warp out as soon as the target dies.

On the other hand, the loss of 25% damage is a MAJOR nerf in situations where you DON'T have overwhelming numbers.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:48:00 - [578]
 

After some thinking the whole U-Boat concept isn't all that bad, provided you do enough damage to really give the enemy something to think about. However, in all honesty, some level of solo capability should remain/be added.
Why? Because many ships are used that way, and there is something to be said about going at it solo.

Ofcourse, real U-Boats could sink a Cruiser with the first two torpedoes, which would be overpowered like crazy in EVE, but the concept remains similar.

Reduce the cloaking delay to 5-10 seconds, and add one midslot for additional E-War, Shield HP or what have you.
Boost CPU and PG considerably to allow for this, Siege Launchers are CPU and PG heavy and so are many E-War/Shield mods.

Keep the Torpedo damage at 20%, you really are not going to one-shot/uber kill anything, all you got is Raven damage without the 5% Raven RoF bonus with better explosion velocity.
The ships that *might* get hit very badly are too small and the ships that aren't too small won't get hit very badly.

Boost the scan resolution of the Stealth Bomber, a cloak has a terrible penalty on it, and it IS a frigate sized vessel that depends on locking stuff fast. Sensor boosters should not be mandatory. Set the base scan resolution to 900mm or so. (500mm or so with Cloak penalty).

Now you could search for a target, decloak, damp it, open fire and recloak before it locks you.
Potentially you could use a Warp Scrambler to prevent the target from warping off while you're decloaked.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:02:00 - [579]
 

The main issue that I see is that Stealth Bombers need to be able to do something that a similarly priced ship can't do. How does a Stealth Bomber's damage compare to a Tier 1 Battleship? They are just about the same, if not less. The battleship also has a lot more flexibility when fitting and can fit a tank and take more punishment when untanked for a similar cost (thanks to insurance).

The only advantages that the Stealth Bomber has (theoretically) are:
1) The stealth bomber is a frigate sized ship, with a frigate sized velocity/agility/sig radius/scan resolution/etc etc...
2) The stealth bomber can fit a cov ops cloak, and/or has some other cloak related bonus.
3) Compatible with Black Ops Cynos.

If you want the Stealth Bomber to be a DPS ship, but not as much DPS as a battleship, then focus on the above listed advantages that a SB has over a BS.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:26:00 - [580]
 

Something worth thinking about: Targetting while cloaked.

If we can target a ship while cloaked, this adds a significant bit of Stealth and sneakiness to the class.
You could decloak and be prepared, having your targets selected and ready to do damage or hit them with E-War.
In addition, it would allow the SB pilot to prevent losing missile damage when cloaking with missiles still en route.

Firing any weapon or using any module will decloak you ofcourse.
No sensor boosters or anything can be used while cloaked all the same, but you can't be (auto)locked back if you lock while cloaked.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:38:00 - [581]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Make a separate bomber class for this new role

This is certainly a please everyone scenario and perfectly logical suggestion by many of you to not cause any unhappiness at all. However we feel that this approach would not work besides being the "path of least resistance". There are some of you who have found a role and strategy that works for you and have dedicated time to specialising in that role and are rightfully critical of having that altered to a new role requiring a change of strategy.

This approach would not work just because there's enough stealth in game. Told ya. Glad you see that we have right to criticise the changes. However, our rights does not matter at all, right?
Quote:
However we believe the vast majority of pilots would and will prefer the new role

They will prefer the new ship, not new role. And only because it have CO cloak. Bigger cargobay will come in hand too. Remove CO cloak and let's see who will be flying it...
Quote:
and the handful who are left preferring the old role in a ship that as we originally stated had missed our original intention for the bomber class

It have had too strong bonuses to sound such fallacy now. Explosion sig radius were always adjusted to be under smallest frigate ragar sig even. It wasn't touched, not even mentioned in the last SB rework as I recall. For me, it is proved as a lie. Sad to see you as a person choosed to make it public.
Quote:
would be left happy but we would have a ship class rarely used and a victim of legacy.

Fix bombs... or just replace them by Citadel torps.
Apply same bonus to them as to Cruise Missile explosion radius, make it overall smaller, so it'll be a bit harder to attack Frigates, but not impossible.
15 or even 14 percent not looks too scary, although almost deny to use solo bombers against frigates.
Smallest I can get is 60.75mm with T2 precision missiles, 123.75 with Fury. Not big a threat to frigates, but certain problem for bigger classes. Add a rate of fire penalty similar to destroyers if you inclined.
At the same time, 225mm Citadel torp explosion would pose a treat against bigger targets. But with almost zero DPS (one launcher should be able to load only one torp, and whole fire-reload cycle must be no shorter than a minute) you'll need a dedicated tackler or very good teamwork.
Quote:
It is much better to evolve the original ships role to where it has a better place and part to play in the game than leave a relic ship class that makes little sense to most even if the transition is a painful one, it is a much preferred approach for us.

A polite "Adapt or die".
Ok, you killed me. You happy now?
I was seriously considering to come back to active playing EVE in two months, when my current workload ease. Now... guess.
Quote:
Dual bonus to both cruise and torpedoes

No comments. I said already, it will never work. And said, why.
Quote:
The bomber when combined with other ships in a gang becomes an incredible provider of damage and that is where its focus is at.

Please explain your view of such gang. You were always avoiding this question, but you can't dodge it all the time.
Quote:
It is quite possible despite its perceived survivability rating that you could come up with a strategy which allows you to solo targets. Never underestimate the right scenario and player :)

I saw solo BS kills in SB already. They was without required fitting to fight frigates, indeed. Will not be surprised if that happens again. And again. You know, exceptions only prove the rule. Not making it.

DeadlyBob
Minmatar
Woopatang
Primary.
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:38:00 - [582]
 

I believe that I have been over anxious about these changes. I feel CCP has a possible good idea at this point.

I retract previous statements and suggestions until the new bomber hits TQ and I can fly it in real combat situations. Then I will make my decision.

(Sisi doesn't count :P)

Anyway, on the whole, I'm just glad CCP is messing with the thing. I love the ship, treat her well.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:38:00 - [583]
 

Quote:
Citadel launchers
we can see some merit in this but the stealth bomber class is not the place for such a huge launcher and missile (very costly as well).

It sounds like bombs are cheaper...
Quote:
That would be more suited to a bigger ship playing an anti capital ship role (who knows what is in store for the remaining unreleased T2 ships)

If you do it right, it'll barely be treatening to battleships. Torps damage scheme are laughable, and without explosion velocity bonus it's speedtanked even without an AB.
But perfectly fulfill the niche you want - a huge damage dealing frigate. May even be used to dismantle cinojammers. Altough it'll take forever to play warp-shoot-warp-reload game...
Quote:
Cloaked velocity vs explosion velocity vs sig radius bonuses

CO cloak is just a bad move. This ship will be used for it, not for it's damaging abilities.

JVol
Amarr
The IMorral MAjority
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:41:00 - [584]
 

IMO, taking the cruise missile option out of the ships arsenal is just plain stupid.


Keep the the configuration as you have it now, cov cloak, missile dmg at 15% and the 15 sec recloak.. BUT DROP THE SIG RAD A BUNCH, Its a stealth bomber, it should have a sig rad inbetween a shuttle and an inty. ADD CRUISE MISSILEs as an option, JUST torps is too much restrictions in such a sand box game..... BAD GM!! ( whoevers idea it was )


WHAT would adding crz missiles to the current sisi model do to whatever 'gm' that took them away's idea of what this ship "HAS" to be?

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:46:00 - [585]
 

Getting both torps and cruise just isn't going to happen, so get used to it. Bombers are already going to be extremely powerful ships, adding a long-range option as well would push them dangerously close to overpowered. And you know, I'd really like to keep my torp bomber, not get it nerfed in the near future because the cruise missiles were one thing too many.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:49:00 - [586]
 

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Quote:
Citadel launchers
we can see some merit in this but the stealth bomber class is not the place for such a huge launcher and missile (very costly as well).

It sounds like bombs are cheaper...

Note: I didn't mentioned Citadel LAUNCHER anywhere. It was meant to fire Citadel Torps from BOMB LAUNCHER. As in RL, you could design a stripped version of packet missile launcher to fire only one missile... all you need is to find a water tube of proper diameter and length, then anchor it to something which wouldn't fly together with the missile. The tube work as initial guide, also protecting you from missile fires.

Pilk
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:51:00 - [587]
 

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 a 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

Monetary Bias
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:57:00 - [588]
 

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 a 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...

Seraphim Io
Caldari
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.04.02 21:18:00 - [589]
 

Edited by: Seraphim Io on 02/04/2009 21:18:54
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

However we believe the vast majority of pilots would and will prefer the new role and the handful who are left preferring the old role in a ship that as we originally stated had missed our original intention for the bomber class would be left happy but we would have a ship class rarely used and a victim of legacy.

It is much better to evolve the original ships role to where it has a better place and part to play in the game than leave a relic ship class that makes little sense to most even if the transition is a painful one, it is a much preferred approach for us.


Yes, keep telling yourself this. Reiterate over and over in your mind till even YOU believe your own absurdity. You cannot SERIOUSLY being doing this, after home many years of being a cruise boat pull a complete 180 with this ship. You say evolve, well your going to evolve this ship right into extinction, At which point I hope they send you where they sent the dev who proposed the carrier changes Evil or Very Mad

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.


and here you lower the DPS of this ship more even after the loss when switching from cruise to torp. Please ****ing listen damn it, on the live server the SB is a more viable pvp ship because of the number of ships it can engage in small to medium sized gangs(not talking about solo or fleet combat here) pretty much anything sub-cap is a viable target with the exception of interceptors if adequate tackling is not present. With these torp changes the only thing your have in mind is BC and up. Thats quite a loss in viable targets. As far as the Fire and recloak ability with 15 seconds, in a perfect scenario it would work, BUT a BS gang with no tackle or insta lock capable ships? You sir are naive and unaware of the popular mechanics of this game. You need to actually READ the protests and DOCUMENT them in your tiny head and not just brush them aside because you THINK you know what you are doing. Evil or Very Mad

musgrattio
Convergent
Posted - 2009.04.02 21:33:00 - [590]
 

All I'll say is, please retain the cruise missile bonuses. We still need to be able to do decent damage with cruise. Do you really think that cruise missiles on stealth bombers were overpowered???????

Then why are you nerfing it????

It spices things up, a group of bombers jumps into a small hac gang... you don't know if you should be close or far range, who knows what they have fitted. Please CCP, leave our cruise bombers alone, they really were quite awesome when used properly, and not overpowered at all.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2009.04.02 22:05:00 - [591]
 

what is wrong with you people? this is not a nerf, this is a buff to the role youre SUPPOSED to use the stealth bomber for.

If you want to kill Hac's cloaky cloaky, fly a recon ship, the stealth bomber is supposed to be a small ship with high alpha as a glass cannon.

besides, has nobody ever heard of a rapier? its like the perfect partnership for this new improved role of the ship.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.04.02 22:34:00 - [592]
 

Originally by: Sigras
what is wrong with you people? this is not a nerf, this is a buff to the role youre SUPPOSED to use the stealth bomber for.

If you want to kill Hac's cloaky cloaky, fly a recon ship, the stealth bomber is supposed to be a small ship with high alpha as a glass cannon.

besides, has nobody ever heard of a rapier? its like the perfect partnership for this new improved role of the ship.


Im inclined to agree. The synergy between SBs and Recons should be pretty good - not omgamazin - but pretty decent.

C.


Tekashi Kovacs
Posted - 2009.04.02 22:40:00 - [593]
 

Originally by: Murashu
Someone else brought up a point that I overlooked. What is being done to fix the problem created for those of us who have cruise missile skills and no torp skills? I just made a new plan on evemon and have 23 days before I can use T2 torps and launchers...23 more days of training because some dev decided I wasn't having fun with my current SB Confused


This.

CCP, its first time you totally changed weapon system on any ship ever. So give us one time "Cruise V -> Torp V" skill transfer or leave both cruise and torp versions of Stealth Bomber. Otherwise give us our 15 bucks back (~~one month of skilling) - its serious business. ;)

Dr Resheph
Amarr
YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY
Posted - 2009.04.02 22:43:00 - [594]
 

On the issue of Cloak..

You claimed Improved Cloak + increased speed bonus was scrapped because it would allow these ships to get into position much quicker. Which part of this is bad? Most frigs can do >1km/s in their sleep. And most combat takes place under 30km by default anyway. Being able to maneuver into range is more tactical than giving people super fast torpedoes with velocity bonuses.

On the issue of Torpedoes and Bombs..

15% damage bonus is still too much, 10% was fine. Your bloated bonuses make having Covert Ops V a must and non-racial ammo useless even if the target is tanked for your type.

And bombs still consume a launcher hardpoint, even though they're based on a modified probe launcher. What the hell? All bombers have a 5th utility slot. If it can't be used on the bombers' second (less common) role, that's the equivalent of saying people should fit only a bomb launcher and fly them as disposable AOE ships. Losing one siege launcher to fit bombs is a big deal to your effectiveness in every other situation.

On the issue of Bombs/Bubbles in empire..

People obviously get ganked by smartbombs in places like Rancer. Do you honestly think someone's going to spam time-delayed and expensive ammo to hit ships that will probably take less damage than what a smartbomb-fitted battleship can do? Your dichotomy in play rules is what gets people killed and what makes the leap into 0.0 a huge one.

At the very least bombs and bubbles should be allowed in sanctioned wars. Right now the list of ships which are impossible to catch in empire and lowsec is simply growing.

On the issue of ship bonuses..

The fact that you're seriously considering signature bonuses on torpedoes is utterly terrifying. Even now, Rage should be bumped up to 830m.

Frigate:
50% cloaked velocity per level

Covert Ops:
10% racial damage
10% torpedo explosion velocity

Role:
Siege Fitting Bonus
Bomb Fitting Bonus
Cloak Reactivation Bonus
Cloak Lock Delay Bonus

In addition to the Rage signature nerf:
-remove turret hardpoints (redundant)
-50% Covert Cyno cpu/powergrid fittings
-remove missile hardpoint requirement for Bomb Bays
-keep the new agility boost, and decrease warp drive cost

In the end, the ship does two thirds the damage of a raven, but can fit either bombs or covert cynos at the same time. It can move around at 750-900m/s while cloaked (with Improved) and hit BS sized targets which are moving 150m/s with no damage reductions. It has the same torpedo ranges as current battleships do.

This ship is far more effective in a gang than current SB because:
-it can keep up in frigate gangs due to improved warp/agility
-it outdamages any current frigate when it comes to BS targets, and at far greater ranges
-it can use bombs or cynos without affecting its performance

Zurioc
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:00:00 - [595]
 

Originally by: JVol
IMO, taking the cruise missile option out of the ships arsenal is just plain stupid.


Keep the the configuration as you have it now, cov cloak, missile dmg at 15% and the 15 sec recloak.. BUT DROP THE SIG RAD A BUNCH, Its a stealth bomber, it should have a sig rad inbetween a shuttle and an inty. ADD CRUISE MISSILEs as an option, JUST torps is too much restrictions in such a sand box game..... BAD GM!! ( whoevers idea it was )


WHAT would adding crz missiles to the current sisi model do to whatever 'gm' that took them away's idea of what this ship "HAS" to be?


QFT

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:02:00 - [596]
 

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 02/04/2009 23:06:20
Originally by: Tekashi Kovacs
Originally by: Murashu
Someone else brought up a point that I overlooked. What is being done to fix the problem created for those of us who have cruise missile skills and no torp skills? I just made a new plan on evemon and have 23 days before I can use T2 torps and launchers...23 more days of training because some dev decided I wasn't having fun with my current SB Confused


This.

CCP, its first time you totally changed weapon system on any ship ever. So give us one time "Cruise V -> Torp V" skill transfer or leave both cruise and torp versions of Stealth Bomber. Otherwise give us our 15 bucks back (~~one month of skilling) - its serious business. ;)


Actually it isn't. When the Khanid ships were changed to short-range missile boats, nobody got any SP reimbursed. I wouldn't expect bombers to be any different.



And I guess this needs repeating: forget about cruise missiles. You are not going to get them for free on a ship that is already about as good as you can possibly justify. So, which would you rather have:

1) An awesome, perfectly focused torpedo bomber.

OR

2) A bomber that is weaker with torps in exchange for the ability to fit cruise missiles.


I think I'll take the one that actually does the job correctly and learn to fit javelin torps.




PS: anyone who wants the non-covert cloaks back is utterly insane. Current bombers are a waste of database space, due in large part to the lack of the covert ops cloak. Please note that if the covops cloak is removed because of you people whining about it, you should expect to be hunted down and griefed out of the game by those of us who are eagerly waiting for our new covert pwnmobiles.

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:14:00 - [597]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 02/04/2009 23:06:20
Originally by: Tekashi Kovacs
Originally by: Murashu
Someone else brought up a point that I overlooked. What is being done to fix the problem created for those of us who have cruise missile skills and no torp skills? I just made a new plan on evemon and have 23 days before I can use T2 torps and launchers...23 more days of training because some dev decided I wasn't having fun with my current SB Confused


This.

CCP, its first time you totally changed weapon system on any ship ever. So give us one time "Cruise V -> Torp V" skill transfer or leave both cruise and torp versions of Stealth Bomber. Otherwise give us our 15 bucks back (~~one month of skilling) - its serious business. ;)


Actually it isn't. When the Khanid ships were changed to short-range missile boats, nobody got any SP reimbursed. I wouldn't expect bombers to be any different.



And I guess this needs repeating: forget about cruise missiles. You are not going to get them for free on a ship that is already about as good as you can possibly justify. So, which would you rather have:

1) An awesome, perfectly focused torpedo bomber.

OR

2) A bomber that is weaker with torps in exchange for the ability to fit cruise missiles.


I think I'll take the one that actually does the job correctly and learn to fit javelin torps.




PS: anyone who wants the non-covert cloaks back is utterly insane. Current bombers are a waste of database space, due in large part to the lack of the covert ops cloak. Please note that if the covops cloak is removed because of you people whining about it, you should expect to be hunted down and griefed out of the game by those of us who are eagerly waiting for our new covert pwnmobiles.


Provided they don't go back to 30 second recloak delay Razz

Thenoran
Caldari
Tranquility Industries
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:23:00 - [598]
 

Another thing, what about the speed of a Stealth Bomber?
Both normal speed and MWD speed is currentely very low, a Manticore almost loses to a Cruiser using its MWD.

Maybe a speed boost to make it a little more difficult for a ship to catch a Stealth Bomber?
Currently a Manticore goes 260m/s at Navigation V, maybe 300m/s is better?

If Stealth is key, speed can make a lot of difference.

Interghast
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:02:00 - [599]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin
So, which would you rather have:

1) An awesome, perfectly focused torpedo bomber.

OR

2) A bomber that is weaker with torps in exchange for the ability to fit cruise missiles.


2 please because I want flexibility not some covert pwnmobile.

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

How much help are you against the cruiser gang you've just run into?
But it is ok, you can gank a solo ratting BS in a few volleys.

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

PS: anyone who wants the non-covert cloaks back is utterly insane. Current bombers are a waste of database space, due in large part to the lack of the covert ops cloak. Please note that if the covops cloak is removed because of you people whining about it, you should expect to be hunted down and griefed out of the game by those of us who are eagerly waiting for our new covert pwnmobiles.


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


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


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

Javelin6
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:03:00 - [600]
 

Edited by: Javelin6 on 03/04/2009 00:03:16
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

a quick update on some changes we will test on sisi over the weekend.

Following feedback and internal playtesting we are looking at a reasonable compromise between the glass and the cannon part of the stealth bombers. Essentially we are looking to decrease the cloak reactivation delay to 15 seconds coupled with a reasonable increase to fittings (grid/cpu) to allow some easier and better fits.

The flip side of this is a reduction in the torpedo damage bonus to 15% per level which means you are still 3/4 of a raven in damage terms but with a much better survivability due to the ability to fire and cloak before ships might be able to lock or deploy drones and also the ability to fit some HP or resistance based mods to your ships.

In addition the agility as been fine tuned as mentioned by Nozh in his post so you should find your align and warp times much faster as well now.

This change should be on sisi after it is rebooted next (which means the changes might not appear until tomorrow)

Please keep the feedback coming!



This looks like a good compromise of second build as long as the explosion velocity isn't lowered to 15% as well.


Pages: first : previous : ... 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 ... : 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