Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:49:00 -
[1]
We are also taking an opportunity to look at stealth bombers in light of the changes over the past years and seeing if we can make them more useful overall. We would like your feedback on this idea and thoughts on this new approach.
It's all about torpedoes!
The main way we are looking at changing the stealth bombers is switching them to fit siege launchers and use torpedoes focusing on a anti-battleship role. Each bomber would gain a damage bonus to its racial damage torpedo of 10% per level) in addition to being able to fit 3 siege launchers as now.
The result of this is much higher damage to larger targets such as battleships but at the cost of range as you have to get much closer to your target. This has pros and cons such as much shorter duration before your torpedo hits and being able to cloak or get away faster after firing but also increases the danger as you have to be extremely close to your targets.
Increased cloaked velocity
To help with the manoeuvring into range, we are looking at increasing the cloaked velocity substantially (so the bomber could have a velocity between 750-1200 m/s). This way the bomber could better keep up and get into range faster with targets for a strike.
These changes would come in addition to some powergrid/cpu and velocity tweaks.
Feedback on this idea is welcome!
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:51:00 -
[2]
reserved
|
|
Prometheus Exenthal
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:12:00 -
[3]
booyah! now get these changes moving nownownownownownow. i want my ecm nerf and bomber booster out yesterday! - MY LATEST VIDEO - BATTLE CRUISE |
Bazman
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:16:00 -
[4]
I would highly suggest that you focus on fixing bombs. As they are they are worthless to deploy. I think it's due to the explosion of bombs being affected by explosion velocity/sig radius. -----
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:17:00 -
[5]
Reserved. Getting change notes out from awhile back. Will postthem when i get home
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:19:00 -
[6]
This is ******ed they have bomb launcher as a bomber should have BOMBER not a ****ing missing ship.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:22:00 -
[7]
Dear Chronotis,
this sounds exciting. What are your thoughts on giving stealth bombers the ability to use covert ops cloak? Then it might even be useful to bring with your black ops gang... Oh wait, not even black-ops has covert ops cloak.
Otherwise, I think this is an interesting change.
Oh, and get we shinified the S&I interface yet?
|
Ceratin
Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:24:00 -
[8]
Sorry but dont like this idea at all, the whole point of bombers is ranged attack using cruise against small targets or suicide risking bomb attacks. If your going to make them use siege, make it so they can cloak and the siege carry on to target, otherwise will make the ship useless imo ------------
|
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:24:00 -
[9]
If you are gonna swap them to torpedos, then they need to get a massive range bonus. No one is gonna fly around in slow T2 ship that has to engage at 18km and can be 2 volleyed by preeeeetty much anything.
Better idea if you want to keep torps: Give them a destroyer-like -50% RoF bonus, a huge damage bonus and a huge range bonus. Let them fire big damage, but really slow rate of fire volleys of torps from long range.
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:26:00 -
[10]
Is it aprils foolsday in iceland? I can't believe the crap ive been seeing in this forum. None of your ecm changes improves any of the ships only makes them harder. And this stealth bomber change is stupid as well. Hey if you are within torpedo range you are almost within tackling range. So you will uncloak, fire off like 3 volleys then the battleship will hit once and you will die. Or the battleships support will target you and tackle you and you will die. You won't be able to kill ANYTHING solo because anything anything with small enough ehp to die quickly also has a sig radius now thats low enough to sig tank the majority of your damage.
|
|
IceAero
Amarr Shadow Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey If you are gonna swap them to torpedos, then they need to get a massive range bonus. No one is gonna fly around in slow T2 ship that has to engage at 18km and can be 2 volleyed by preeeeetty much anything.
Better idea if you want to keep torps: Give them a destroyer-like -50% RoF bonus, a huge damage bonus and a huge range bonus. Let them fire big damage, but really slow rate of fire volleys of torps from long range.
THIS
|
Shaddam V
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:26:00 -
[12]
Why not allow the pilot to choose cruise or torp? There are many pilots out there that trained cruises for a bomber but may not have done the same with torps (if, for example, they don't fly ravens or phoons). -------------------
Go then - there are other worlds than these. |
Leere
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:27:00 -
[13]
forcing bombers into close range and giving them torps means they'll just get graped by anything smaller than a battleship.
|
Aeronith
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:31:00 -
[14]
Changing the weapon type for stealth bombers isn't as likely to get people using them as, say, letting them use covops cloaks. |
Cult Keeper
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:32:00 -
[15]
Give them ability to use a Cov Ops Cloak and 100% damage bonus to torps, they'd be a perfect suicide ship with a possibility to get away
|
Bary OBama
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:33:00 -
[16]
I think the mistake here is giving them such a limited role. Let them use torps or cruises and give missiles a much needed PvP buff.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are also taking an opportunity to look at stealth bombers in light of the changes over the past years and seeing if we can make them more useful overall. We would like your feedback on this idea and thoughts on this new approach.
It's all about torpedoes!
The main way we are looking at changing the stealth bombers is switching them to fit siege launchers and use torpedoes focusing on a anti-battleship role. Each bomber would gain a damage bonus to its racial damage torpedo of 10% per level) in addition to being able to fit 3 siege launchers as now.
The result of this is much higher damage to larger targets such as battleships but at the cost of range as you have to get much closer to your target. This has pros and cons such as much shorter duration before your torpedo hits and being able to cloak or get away faster after firing but also increases the danger as you have to be extremely close to your targets.
Increased cloaked velocity
To help with the manoeuvring into range, we are looking at increasing the cloaked velocity substantially (so the bomber could have a velocity between 750-1200 m/s). This way the bomber could better keep up and get into range faster with targets for a strike.
These changes would come in addition to some powergrid/cpu and velocity tweaks.
Feedback on this idea is welcome!
YES PLEASE!
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:37:00 -
[18]
Give choice of Torps OR Cruise. Decent range bonus (engaging out to 25-30k) Velocity bonus is nice Remove the cloak and your missiles swan off into the distance.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:38:00 -
[19]
I don't like that idea. Why?
1) Torps have a really big signature and low explosion velocity. If you give the bomber the reduced signature for torps you still have a pentalty for explosion speed.
2) Aren't bombers meant to use ... bombs? Please make bombs useful!
3) Bombers are in no way cost efficient, and it is all about cost efficiency. Bombers are paper thin and even with torps they would do no reasonable enough damage. Every destroyer can kill them within seconds.
4) How about choosing to fit either torps/cruise missiles or one citadel launcher on bombers?
All in all, please think more about the whole bomber thing. What role do you want the bomber to fill? At the moment this is completely unclear (at least to me).
|
Jalum Krayal
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:39:00 -
[20]
I think designing a frigate to kill battleships is kinda cool.
Requiring them to do it from torpedo range is a bit absurd.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:40:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 24/03/2009 18:43:26
Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey If you are gonna swap them to torpedos, then they need to get a massive range bonus. No one is gonna fly around in slow T2 ship that has to engage at 18km and can be 2 volleyed by preeeeetty much anything.
Better idea if you want to keep torps: Give them a destroyer-like -50% RoF bonus, a huge damage bonus and a huge range bonus. Let them fire big damage, but really slow rate of fire volleys of torps from long range.
completely disagree. The idea is great. You can move in very fast , uncloak fire 4 seconds later cloak NO BS can lock you before you recloak! A BS needs 15 seconds to lock a stealth bomber
The best way with CURRENT SB is already to fire very close range!!
In fact a SB can single handed force a BS to warp out this way!
CCP this is a great idea! ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:53:00 -
[22]
All a battleship needs is 5 light drones (which all battleships can carry) and the stealthbomber is toast.
Recloaking is useless as only 1 volley is hardly enough to even worry a battleship pilot, and staying uncloaked for longer will simply mean the battleship will very quickly destroy the paper thin stealthbomber. Better to boost the cruise missiles from a SB (double the missile speed for example) to make bombers more effective against smaller targets.
And a much shorter duration for torps to hit? Maybe if they get a speed bonus as well as their other bonuses that would work, otherwise torps are just slow as hell.
Director of Training :: EVE University
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:53:00 -
[23]
So now the SB has to be within range of points to do anything?
What a smart idea.
Now EVE related mod proof Disco Kitteh |
Markus Chen
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:55:00 -
[24]
As it is: Patient stealth bomber can solo kill an unwary frigate or un-tanked cruiser.
As you would have it be: Not be able to kill anything because A) battleships have much higher hp than the bonuses you are giving and B) Torps can't kill frigates and will barely be able to scratch cruisers. C) 16k away from any target will result in horrible, useless death.
So, while I applaud your wanting to take a look at the stealth bomber, I think making into a "battleship killer" is not realistic and reduces it's usefulness instead of making it cooler :(
|
Jalum Krayal
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:55:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
completely disagree. The idea is great. You can move in very fast , uncloak fire 4 seconds later cloak NO BS can lock you before you recloak! A BS needs 15 seconds to lock a stealth bomber
The best way with CURRENT SB is already to fire very close range!!
In fact a SB can single handed force a BS to warp out this way!
CCP this is a great idea!
I would like to introduce you to my friend: Mr. Warrior II. I see you haven't met my friend, Mr. Warrior II
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:58:00 -
[26]
One thing on this:
The current problem with Bombers is their survivability. Giving them Torps that don't really do a lot of dps won't change it.
As the SB is a t2 elite Frig, what about re-doing its bonuses so it could use t2 high damage torps that do full damage on a battleship without any targetpainter needed. An AB on the BS should of course lower the damage received.
Now that you did that, reduce cloaking delays, allowing the bomber to decloak, instantly lock, fire, and recloak. A skilled bomber pilot together with a good inty pilot should be able to get a bs into big trouble.
While you're at it, Bombers have two severe problems. They can't warp longer distances. Reduce the factor of the cap needed for them to warp, so they could actually keep up with a small roaming gang.
Right now, if we wanted to roam with a bunch of ceptors, stealthbombers can't even keep up with the speed of a hac, which arguably is a lot more useful to take down bs. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:05:00 -
[27]
Now wonder if a gang of 5 SB each 1 have 1 target painter 1 SB and siege launchers. They can sneakyly approach a HAC. Get 5 km uncloak, lock TP him fire. HAC is dead (4 TP bring a deimos signature to > 500).
Finnaly a HUGE buff to target painters. And a VERY useful stealth bomber.
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:13:00 -
[28]
Reduce the price of bombs even more please.
On topic of the torps:
3* 1.4 (bonus) = 4.2 is around 3000 salvo damage (4000 max with BCU's)
Effective HP of an untanked BS : 32k Effective HP of a buffered BS : anywhere from 80-100k
So you'd need 12-15 SB's to instapop an untanked BS and about 30-40 for a buffered one.
Torp damage can be reduced drastically in groups by smartbombs.
Seeing how fragile, costly, risky and hard to coordinate SB's are the damage should be raised imo.
Don't be afraid that you'll see SB gangs instapopping BS's. It's what they are supposed to do, if it doesn't pop it's a failed run because you'll lose 1-3 SB's out of a pack of 20.
SB gangs could bring back the need for smartbombs.
On the other hand there is the potential for SB gangs to kill mission runners but with their faction stuff you'll be looking at 30-50 SB fleets for a single attack.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:14:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jalum Krayal Edited by: Jalum Krayal on 24/03/2009 19:03:28
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
completely disagree. The idea is great. You can move in very fast , uncloak fire 4 seconds later cloak NO BS can lock you before you recloak! A BS needs 15 seconds to lock a stealth bomber
The best way with CURRENT SB is already to fire very close range!!
In fact a SB can single handed force a BS to warp out this way!
CCP this is a great idea!
I see you haven't met my friend, Mr. Warrior II
Then you do not attack Battleships taht already have warrioir II already in space? Stop tryign to find situatiosn where a tactic don't work. If it worked ALWAYS would not be a tactic, woudl be somethign ready to be nerfed. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Cazziel
Karjala Inc. The Polaris Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:31:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Cazziel on 24/03/2009 19:32:01 I don't like the idea at all. It's somehow nice to be able to kill something even with a SINGLE tech 2 ship. These changes would reduce the uses of SBs quite drastically as the possible targets would be limited to BC sized ships and bigger in order to do ANY harm.
Now the stealth bombers can hurt almost any ship in game, with the big risk of getting destroyed by a single ship able to shoot 100km away. Besides most of the battles are fought near celestial objects anyway so the 100km+ range ain't that common.
Like someone said earlier, I'd love to see more bombs used in battles. I guess I've seen one bomb in space, which didn't even blow up. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |