Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lisento Slaven
Amarr The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:19:00 -
[61]
These changes seem good.
The alpha increase against large ships may make them a bit too powerful. Do you honestly think a single ship like this should be able to do that much damage to a large ship?
I fully endorse the alpha increase vs smaller targets (since this was nerfed with the missile nerf). I don't know if the alpha vs larger targets should be increased by so much though. ---
Put in space whales!
|
insidion
Caldari Last of the Technocracy Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:50:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Ghoest Two changes fix the class
1 Allow Covert Ops cloaks.
2 Make bombs dangerous to the target.
Would be nice if you could fit a full rack in the high slots appropriately. 3 cruise+cloak+offline bomb launcher seems kinda pointless to me given the already lengthy deployment times and other issues.
|
Isil Rahsen
IsilZheHa Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 00:23:00 -
[63]
/signed
CCP hire this man for balancing. |
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:42:00 -
[64]
Please provide address where I can have shipped a crate of Exotic Dancers. This balancing plan is just complete win. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- PROPOSAL: Chaos Incarnate's Face MMORPG: Many Men Online Role Playing Girls |
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 05:55:00 -
[65]
brilliant!!!
CCP Hire this man now!
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 07:32:00 -
[66]
Hm. Some nice ideas, i do disagree on the extra dmg to interceptors. I see the stealth bombers as a torpedo boat kinda ship, thus its natural ability should be to alpha targets bigger than itself, while not beein at all effective against ships of its own size.
So while I approve of bigger alpha against larger targets, it shouldnt be able to even scratch an interceptor, nor do much dmg aganst any frig sized ship. |
Mephistophilis
Domination. Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 13:59:00 -
[67]
Nice ideas! Or just half the rof but double the volly dmg, like was mentioned t'other problem SB's have is the missile velocity. But you can;t have everything i guess
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 23:28:00 -
[68]
Thanks for the support and input so far everyone. I was on the fence as to whether I should post this thread or not.
Some further musings,
There are many ways the stealth bomber class can be improved, many many ways. I listed just a few ideas centered around improving their performance but trying to keep the role they currently enjoy (well, not really enjoy) but not overpower them in any particular department.
I would support many other ways to change the stealth bomber as well, such as a complete revamp of bomb mechanics (new types, better damage, better deployment, still detonate if cloaked/destroyed, ect.) or a revamp of the bomber primary weapon systems (such as small gang centered bomb launchers, cheaper and less powerful, ect.)
The OP was centered around keeping the current mechanics of the stealth bomber, and adressing the biggest needs I see with this class, which are
- Better stealth maneuverability
- Increased alpha damage potential (so when not bombing, the alpha damage of these ships should be the primary selling-point for bringing them along in a gang)
- Improvement to bomb deployment (a 5 to 8 man squad of bombers should be a serious consideration to include in any fleet)
I am aware CCP is looking into the performance of SB's. They may very well have their own solution at this time, and this thread may have been moot. If not, then I hope maybe we could help get their Dev and Balancer juices flowing a bit.
A couple points of clarification to the OP
Originally by: Wannabehero The stealth bombers could, frankly, use an alpha boost against larger targets, but increasing their alpha too significantly against frigate (excluding interceptors)
What I mean by 'excluding interceptors' is that the stealth bomber could use more than just a minor boost to alpha damage against interceptors. While inties should still enjoy relatively high reduction against stealth bomber damage, the alpha from 3 heavily boosted cruise missiles should cause some notice from the interceptor pilot and force him to weigh the advantages of pursuing the bomber or sticking to his current target.
Originally by: Wannabehero 7. Reduce the signature radius of bombs from 400m to 250m
By this, I mean the actual signature of the bomb, not the explosion radius. Given the new proposed 10 second flight window and a 250m bomb an all battleship group would be hard pressed to target the bomb in time to shoot it down, placing another incentive to include higher scan res ships in flights (yay diversity)
Thanks everyone so far for your thoughts and comments |
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 13:44:00 -
[69]
I have, more than once touched myself at night to thoughts of this post.
sXe |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 18:32:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Warrio I have, more than once touched myself at night to thoughts of this post.
thanks?
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
Galia Bonaventure
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 02:19:00 -
[71]
Excellent post
speed boost - great
alpha boost - great (could possibly be slightly more vs. small ships)
bomb boost - great, but imo doesn't go far enough, bigger boost would be nice. Lower cost per bomb by another third would be excellent (~ 4mil per bomb), since if bomb use became common, players would probably pay more attention to them and they would be shot down more.
Boost Stealth Bombers now!
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 22:13:00 -
[72]
Synonyms: bump (v)
hit knock bang strike wallop bash jolt bounce jounce jar jerk bound spring collide slam into crash into knock smash into |
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 03:03:00 -
[73]
Superb post about a fun, fun ship class that is sadly broken and ignored, like a toy a week after Christmas.
Shame CCP doesn't worry about fixing the stuff they've broken.
OP should be given a job... CCP, you listening???
Z
|
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 04:22:00 -
[74]
Nice post. But just another casualty of the missile overnerf.
|
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 08:45:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Soporo Nice post. But just another casualty of the missile overnerf.
I would go further by saying bombers have been absolutely crippled by the missile nerf.
|
Taradis
Amarr The Imperial Assassins
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 09:35:00 -
[76]
your my hero I like the proposed ideas FIX the DAMN SB's please
|
Crime Zero
Black Thorne Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 16:57:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Wannabehero ... I am aware CCP is looking into the performance of SB's. They may very well have their own solution at this time, and this thread may have been moot. If not, then I hope maybe we could help get their Dev and Balancer juices flowing a bit.
I sure hope so as the OP expertly highlights the flaws with the current SB ships.
CCP, listen to this pilot! He knows SB's!
Excellent post!
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 17:38:00 -
[78]
I think is silly that a ship with cov ops in the name can't even fit a cov ops cloak.
May the EvE gods bless this thread.
|
Connner
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 19:27:00 -
[79]
/signed
I really want to see SB's usefull again. I liked mine before the missile nerf, but now its not so good. |
Cs3Sl2
Caldari Quantum Singularity Initiative Dark Nebula Galactic Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 19:40:00 -
[80]
Nice post Hope CCP read it and take some notes :) |
|
Dark Soldat
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 20:05:00 -
[81]
EMPLOY THIS MAN CCP !!!! /signed /crosses fingers and hops his manticore will be viable again. This thread turns me on. |
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 21:18:00 -
[82]
The thought of how much fun a SB would be if it was truly stealthy -able to warp cloaked- makes my pants tight.
I know Eve does not equal RL, but... ghah.
Imagine a nuclear sub, billions of dollar spent on propulsion and surface coatings to make it as invisible as possible, but only actually stealthy once it arrives where it's going. Or a stealth plane, a billion a pop, that flies into Baghdad completely un-stealthed and visible to radar. Kinda silly.
Z
|
Venduras
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 22:34:00 -
[83]
Two things that annoy me the most is the slow missile speed and Bombs being restricted to 0.0. Having Bombs in high-sec should never happen (It would kill Jita, which is good...but then again...), but having them in low-sec shouldn't be a problem and allows for more diversity in their use.
The other problem is that (even if the target is tackled), the missiles can take so long to travel 100-150km at 5625m/s that half the time the target is either dead, primary got switched, or it managed to escape.
Another small thingy I would like to see added is the missiles continueing on their course after being fired. They will still go poof on you if you warp out, but if you fire a few volleys and recloak, the missiles shouldn't just die out. Although if you recloak when your missiles are 40km short of the target, they'll still hit, they should continue on regardless. You would still have to decloak to fire them.
Aside from this, all Stealth Bombers need a CPU boost. You are lucky to be able to fit proper Sensor Booster/Damps with Malkuths and BCUs as it is, whereas the T2 Cruise Launchers and other varieties should be useable as well.
|
Nayomi
Minmatar M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 02:49:00 -
[84]
Signed
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:23:00 -
[85]
Absolutely not on the "should do more damage to intys"
I like flying bombers just fine, but swatting ceptors out of the sky is the absolute last role they should ever fill. ------------------ For Medicinal Use Only. |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:56:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Julius Romanus Absolutely not on the "should do more damage to intys"
I like flying bombers just fine, but swatting ceptors out of the sky is the absolute last role they should ever fill.
The proposed cruise missile changes do not allow stealth bombers to swat ceptors out of the sky. In fact, using a speed fit crusader again as an example.
Crusader 72m sig, 6500 m/s speed.
New proposed volley damage (averaged estimation) ~270 damage
Number of volleys necessary to kill said ceptor 8 - 9
Time it would take a single stealth bomber to deal that many salvos with the proposed changes 3.8 - 4.3 minutes
Not overpowered vs. ceptors at all, simply boosting the alpha by about 2.5x, but the RoF is halved, keeping the DPS still very low.
The proposed missile bonus value changes were geared specifically to prevent massive boosts to the damage dealing potential of the stealth bomber vs. small targets, but slightly more of a boost vs. ceptors than T1 frigates and cruisers (compared to the damage dealt now percentage wise, not absolute damage values). The desire was to allow stealth bombers to gain a large alpha boost against large targets/heavily webbed or painted targets, but a substantially smaller alpha boost against small targets.
Actually, upon revisting the numbers, I think I may make some recalculations vs. smaller targets. I think some of my speed values may have been to conservative when writing the OP. Updates will be forthcoming. |
Venduras
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 11:43:00 -
[87]
Side question to above, how would the damage do against AB Assault Frigs?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |