It's all about torpedoes!

Increased cloaked velocity

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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!

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

In New Eden, EVE wins you.

---

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

---

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!

---

Originally by: Panzram

---

this is hilarious, please do it

---

Originally by: Jedziah

---

I just finished recovering from the ECM rebalance. Now you have finished me off for good!

Absolutely awesome.

---

Originally by: Peter Powers

---

if you want a ship to be closerange
the for gods sake: give it a tank,

there is no point in making a paper ship
close range

bombers dont have a high survivability nowadays,
a change like that makes 'em even more vulnerable,
in exchange for very little dps..

if you want to work on bombers, and seriously improve them
then please have a look on how you could improve bombs
to be usefull.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Allow me to summarize in three simple words:


Worst. Idea. Ever.


Now to be a bit more constructive, I suppose. This idea has three fundamental problems that will ensure bombers are still utter trash:


1) Torpedo dps sucks.


2) Bombers are paper-thin.

3) Bombers are not stealthy.

The solution is simple: give bombers the covops cloak, re-balance from there.

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Not true, at all. Torpedo DPS is excellent. You've plucked that concept from out of the air, because I'm certainly very happy with how my raven and CNR perform in anti-bs PVP. I dont really use them against mixed gangs of smaller stuff, but I guess that is the point. The raw dps figure and the appliable DPS experience/feel both match up to "****ing nice damage".

---

Quote:

---

You are also of course completely missing the point. What OTHER frigate can take down a BS solo? None, based on pure damage. There are plenty that can do it through gnawing away on a buffer-tanked ship, which a torp bomber would be even better at. Any BS that reps enough to shrug off "sucky torpedo dps"() would easily tank any other frigates.

---

Quote:

---

3) You are correct here, TO an extent. Its not a coincidence that the two "covert" classes that use an improved cloak are crap. However, if the main offense is useful enough, then the cloaked behaviour becomes an extra part of their range of abilities, rather then their raison d'etre - ie you wont always be trying to think about cloaking, unlike say force recons. If they're reliant on cloaking 100%, because their offense isnt that great, then yes, they need a decent cloak.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Stuff

---

Originally by: DNSBLACK

---

Edited by: DNSBLACK on 24/03/2009 21:13:22
OK here are a few choice ideas

1. Create a modual that allows dual ammo types that is for a bomber only. Like guns can change ammo allow the bomber to use a launcher that can use cruise and torps. That way they can choose the range on the fly and not at the station

2. Make the bomb launcher a slot of its own. 3 missle hard points and a bomb launcher hard point

3. Allow the damage to count even if the bomber pilot has warped off.

4. Make the bombs launch out the rear of the ship so they do not get in the way of the warp. The bombs move the oppisite direction of the ship.

5. Give a bounus to ecm burst so they have a one shot survive button. Like a tank punching smoke to evade. Give a bonus to target painter range or effect.

6. Allow bombers to lock while cloaked.

7. Allow bombers to warp cloaked.

8. Give a little increase to rate of fire.

9. Give the bombers a modual that uses heavy water to see other cloaked ships for 30 sec. They can use this while they are cloaked

10. Allow Black OP CYNOS to fire in cyno jammed system so we can bridge in the bombers and recons.

These are just ideas for the devs to think about. I know alot fo them sound over powered but they are different ideas to redifine the role of a bomber. Why not make it a anti recon ship.
----------------------------------------------

A. As for the speed changes while cloaked they are useless if they see you come on to grid.

B. The nerf to the missle from the QR expansion (explosion velocity) can remain if you boost the ships ability and over all role. I understand the bomber is not a solo ship. The missle nerf has damped the ability to hunt frigs and cruiser and insta pop them and made it more of a challenge to hunt with them.


I have worked with bombers for a long time. The sad part is the Black OPS are the ones that need looked at and the fuel usage lowered for ships going thru a bridge or the BO BS jumping. Dam i almost forgot that thing called a fuel bay

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Not true, at all. Torpedo DPS is excellent. You've plucked that concept from out of the air, because I'm certainly very happy with how my raven and CNR perform in anti-bs PVP. I dont really use them against mixed gangs of smaller stuff, but I guess that is the point. The raw dps figure and the appliable DPS experience/feel both match up to "****ing nice damage".

---

Torpedo damage is nice on a battleship. On a frigate with half the launcher hardpoints and less fitting room for the 3x BCUs + drones + painter/web/scram, it's a joke. It's not enough to threaten a battleship, and near-worthless against anything smaller thanks to pitiful explosion radius/velocity.

Quote:

---

You are also of course completely missing the point. What OTHER frigate can take down a BS solo? None, based on pure damage. There are plenty that can do it through gnawing away on a buffer-tanked ship, which a torp bomber would be even better at. Any BS that reps enough to shrug off "sucky torpedo dps"() would easily tank any other frigates.

---

Here's a hint: it sure as hell isn't going to be a torpedo bomber. The battleship is just going to laugh at the pathetic damage (even a buffer tanked ship will tank it for a long time) and insta-pop the bomber.

Quote:

---

3) You are correct here, TO an extent. Its not a coincidence that the two "covert" classes that use an improved cloak are crap. However, if the main offense is useful enough, then the cloaked behaviour becomes an extra part of their range of abilities, rather then their raison d'etre - ie you wont always be trying to think about cloaking, unlike say force recons. If they're reliant on cloaking 100%, because their offense isnt that great, then yes, they need a decent cloak.

---

And see, that's the problem. Note the name: stealth bomber. It's reasonable to expect that a stealth bomber will use stealth as a primary feature. Torps and no cloak might be useful on a "heavy AF" or torpedo destroyer, but it's not appropriate for a stealth bomber.

---

Originally by: Cazzah

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Stuff

---

Sounds nice to me, but you missed out one T2 frigate in there - covert ops - the scout version - by giving Stealth bombers covert ops cloaks won't that make ships like the Buzzard redundant? How would you suggest CCP deal with that?

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

The argument that torps are only good on a BS because of drones and support mods, of all things, is utterly nonsensical. The facts are this - torpedoes are a very high damage weapons system, wherever they are used, and bombers would be no different, especially with a DOUBLE damage bonus. Look at the numbers - 540 DPS is a reasonable rough estimate of their capabilities.

Where do you get the idea that the damage is bad? Certainly not TQ.

---

Originally by: Cazzah

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Stuff

---

Sounds nice to me, but you missed out one T2 frigate in there - covert ops - the scout version - by giving Stealth bombers covert ops cloaks won't that make ships like the Buzzard redundant? How would you suggest CCP deal with that?

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

You know what's really stupid? CCP is giving the covops cloak to T3 ships. Yep, you got that right, your dedicated stealth ship can't have it, but the ship with more damage, more tank, more ewar, gang mods, probes, etc, is perfectly balanced with one.

---

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!

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

The argument that torps are only good on a BS because of drones and support mods, of all things, is utterly nonsensical. The facts are this - torpedoes are a very high damage weapons system, wherever they are used, and bombers would be no different, especially with a DOUBLE damage bonus. Look at the numbers - 540 DPS is a reasonable rough estimate of their capabilities.

Where do you get the idea that the damage is bad? Certainly not TQ.

---

You can't just consider the dps, you have to consider the ship itself. The Raven brings twice the DPS, and dual neuts to effectively add even more, on a ship that can actually fit enough tank to apply its damage for more than a few seconds.


The bomber's 540dps, on the other hand, looks a lot less impressive once you realize that the only thing you're hitting for full damage has plenty of EHP to laugh off your attack and insta-pop you. Even with multiple bombers, you're going to lose several of them (along with their 540 dps) unless you blob with so many of them that it ceases to matter what ships you bring to your 10v1 fight.

---

Originally by: Cazziel

---

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.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Oh, FFS, is this really that complicated?

Torp dps on bombers sucks because the increase in their target's tank is VASTLY more than the dps gained. 540 dps is a pathetic joke when your target has 100k or more EHP, and you have a life expectancy measured in seconds. Even assuming you have 5v1 odds and the battleship has no active tank, you're talking about 40 seconds to kill it, and each bomber loss is going to increase that time significantly.

Now, what exactly do you think are the chances of keeping your bombers alive that long? Correct, near-zero. To operate properly in the close-range anti-battleship role, bombers need significantly higher dps.



The Raven manages to avoid this problem because not only does it have double the damage from missiles alone, it has neuts to reduce the dps required to kill the target (effectively increasing its dps) and enough of a tank that it can reasonably expect to survive long enough to score the kill.

The comparison is just night and day. At 5v1 odds, the bombers have to get lucky to get the kill at all, and absurdly lucky to do it without suffering any losses. At 5v1 odds, a gang of Ravens will not only effortlessly get the kill, but they'll do it in less than half the time, and with essentially zero risk of losses.

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

The argument that torps are only good on a BS because of drones and support mods, of all things, is utterly nonsensical. The facts are this - torpedoes are a very high damage weapons system, wherever they are used, and bombers would be no different, especially with a DOUBLE damage bonus. Look at the numbers - 540 DPS is a reasonable rough estimate of their capabilities.

Where do you get the idea that the damage is bad? Certainly not TQ.

---

You can't just consider the dps, you have to consider the ship itself. The Raven brings twice the DPS, and dual neuts to effectively add even more, on a ship that can actually fit enough tank to apply its damage for more than a few seconds.


The bomber's 540dps, on the other hand, looks a lot less impressive once you realize that the only thing you're hitting for full damage has plenty of EHP to laugh off your attack and insta-pop you. Even with multiple bombers, you're going to lose several of them (along with their 540 dps) unless you blob with so many of them that it ceases to matter what ships you bring to your 10v1 fight.

---

So first its drones and tackling that makes torps good, now its neutralisers? The argument keeps on changing!

At the end of the day, I'm not going to get into theorycrafting of what happens in a group of bombers vs a battleship. Yes, it can start to pop them, presuming they're happy to sit there and let it. In the hands of competant pilots, I think not.

Realistically, stealth bomber frigates fit into two gangs - all cloaking stealth gangs (where recons solve your tackling, painting and easily-dying problems) or all frigate gangs, where interceptors and EAFs do likewise.

In a gang that is neither all-frig or cloaked, then OBVIOUSLY the bomber is the wrong choice, because its anti-BS dps, and in a mixed/bigger gang then you can obviously just bring a BS!

That doesnt mean that there isnt a role for an anti-BS dps frigate, considering a) we have way too many anti-frig platforms already, and b) torpedoes do exactly that. That's why I called you on your original bull**** "torpedo dps sucks" -because it doesnt.

Of course I have concerns about bomber surivability - indeed, read what I originally wrote! But stop changing your argument to attempt to justify the idea that they'll be crap just based on the torpedo concept. This is a fallacy.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Oh, FFS, is this really that complicated?

Torp dps on bombers sucks because the increase in their target's tank is VASTLY more than the dps gained. 540 dps is a pathetic joke when your target has 100k or more EHP, and you have a life expectancy measured in seconds. Even assuming you have 5v1 odds and the battleship has no active tank, you're talking about 40 seconds to kill it, and each bomber loss is going to increase that time significantly.

Now, what exactly do you think are the chances of keeping your bombers alive that long? Correct, near-zero. To operate properly in the close-range anti-battleship role, bombers need significantly higher dps.



The Raven manages to avoid this problem because not only does it have double the damage from missiles alone, it has neuts to reduce the dps required to kill the target (effectively increasing its dps) and enough of a tank that it can reasonably expect to survive long enough to score the kill.

The comparison is just night and day. At 5v1 odds, the bombers have to get lucky to get the kill at all, and absurdly lucky to do it without suffering any losses. At 5v1 odds, a gang of Ravens will not only effortlessly get the kill, but they'll do it in less than half the time, and with essentially zero risk of losses.

---

Originally by: Peter Powers

---

if you want a ship to be closerange
the for gods sake: give it a tank,

there is no point in making a paper ship
close range

bombers dont have a high survivability nowadays,
a change like that makes 'em even more vulnerable,
in exchange for very little dps..

if you want to work on bombers, and seriously improve them
then please have a look on how you could improve bombs
to be usefull.

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

Only if you are a pathetic player. Chance of a SB with THAT speed cloaked survive is near 100% against a battleship. USe your brain! I have never lost a single SB in 8 months using them. And ALWAYS engage very very close range. Uncloak lock fire, then recloak or warp away.

---

Originally by: God GirlFriend

---

For a supposed elite pvp force member you are completely clueless. You need no tank to be close range You just need to be smart. You are NOT going to exchange blows with anyone. You will warp a group of 5-7 of those to a SS OUTSIDE grid. Move cloaked at 1 km/s until near a gate camp or some other type of targets semi static. You will stop, align to planet... uncloak all ships lock activate Target painters , Fire Torps at 4 km. Wait 2 seconds warp away with a BC or command ship blown up into pieces.

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

I'll just flat-out ignore mad claims like new bombers should do EVEN MORE dps than this change offers - how far do you want to go with that? I mean, far exceeding any other frigate, to you, is "pathetically low". Perhaps they should just BE Navy Ravens but with a 40m sig, frigate speed and a covops cloak?

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

just LOL. LOOOL 100k HP? Check how much HP for example a SNIPER fit tempest have. 31 K effective HP!!!! So stop lying!

---

Quote:

---

A huge alpha strike is the ONLY chance to make SB work. IF you think you will kill ANYTHING at long range with a cruise SB you are fighting only the most stupid possible targets. Since they can simply warp off!!!

---

Quote:

---

Also LIE on drones instapoping you. They take form 2 to 3 seconds to trigger their agro. They take another 2 seconds to reach you (you will still be carrier at near 1km/s after uncloak for a while with the new changes, so even more time). By that time you have warped off after torps hit.

---

Quote:

---

I've been doing CLOSE range SB alpha strikes for months. And NEVER EVER I got down from shields. EVEn against ships with light drones out. Just use your rain and avoid ships with sentry deployed. So or you are HORRIBLE or you lying or you never tried. Because its VERY hard to die in this scenario if you select well your targets.

---

Quote:

---

Try somethign before saying it does not work. Because even now it works for a LOT of people. So clearly YOU are doing something wrong!

---

Quote:

---

The grid loaders bookmarks (a few km outside grid so you can load big blob battles in a normal MOVE not a warp (sicne when you load by slow-boating into the grid you load WAY faster and do not get a never loading grid situation) is something you SHOULD have for every gate in your home stations or station your alliance is trying to take or choke point gate in route to 0.0 where you live. If you don't have it. you are a fail.. .on any ship...

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Interesting.

I think if you want the Stealth Bombers to assume a 'submarine / u-boat' role they really need to be able to warp whilst cloaked. Other wise all surprise is lost as the target will simply observe you warping in - and the velocity bonus is more or less irrelevant if you are in an 'ambush' position as you have already chosen your ambush spot and are simply waiting for someone to fall into it.

Im not sure how the SB will survive post launch however, they have pretty weak tanks (if it can even be called a 'tank'). The sensible solution in my view is simply to improve the SB tank, so it can engage and remain under fire for a short period.

C.

---

Originally by: DiseL

---

I do not see this being viable if it is limited to Torpedo use only. The only time this would be effective is against a solo BS or BC or possibly a pair. How often do you see this? If there is any support the bombers are toast or at best get off one volley before warping which is completely useless unless you have 20 bombers. A good tackle will have you locked before you warp off or decloak you at close range. Sensor boosted HACs like the Zealot will insta-pop the bomber. The only change a bomber needs is three launcher hardpoints in addition to allowing a bomb launcher and possibly an explosion velocity bonus to make up for the crappy missile changes a few months back. I am not sure why everyone believes the Stealth Bomber should have an anti-battleship role. It's a Stealth Bomber, not a PT boat. Stealth Bombers can inflict massive amounts of damage on any size target with it's only defense being stealth capability and range. Why change the part of the ship that works (cruise missiles) and not even touch the part that needs significant tweaking (bombs)? If they want to change the role then focus on the bombs because it is called a Stealth BOMBER for a reason.

---

Originally by: Vitrael

---

On Torpedos on Stealth bombers:

Historically, the bomber's primary advantage in battle has been its ability to engage suddenly from long ranges for excellent damage (compared to other frigates). After bombers received their third missile hardpoint and decloak lock time bonus, they were extremely effective support vessels for quickly mopping up frigates and cruisers, especially when assisted by tackling recons. The bomber enjoyed its role at the expense of tank and versatility. It has really only ever had one role- glass artillery cannon.

Fast forward to Quantum Rise. The missile damage formula is (rather haphazardly) re-balanced to account for changes made to ship speeds in the same patch. The sudden importance of signature radius and target velocity in the "missile damage reduction factor" was not accounted for in the Stealth Bomber's bonuses. As a result, the bomber became fairly ineffective when attacking frigates (in particular interceptors) and fast, low signature radius cruisers. The ships were as effective as ever when dealing with battlecruisers and battleships, but just the same many bomber pilots took issue with the sudden change.

Now, Bombers could be easily restored to their previous state by adding a bonus to either missile explosion radius, explosion velocity, or both to account for the changes made to missiles in Quantum Rise. Instead, the Torpedo idea has suddenly arisen, a seeming non sequitur. Rather than restore the old bomber role you have chosen to completely throw it out in favor of a new one. What was the deciding factor in this?

Anyway...

What I don't like about Torpedos in general is that fitting them severely limits you when fighting anything with a sub battleship sized signature radius. Even tier 1 battleships (Typhoons, Geddons, Scorpions, Domis) get a damage reduction from torpedos due to their low signature radii (provided they are not MWDing).

This compromise seems reasonably acceptable to, for example, a Typhoon or Raven pilot who is expecting to engage other battleships or capitals. Those battleships also have additional means of dealing with frigates and cruisers that can avoid a lot of torpedo damage: spacious drone bays, slots for heavy neutralizers, and the likes.

Bombers have no such luxuries at their disposal, and are quickly fried by drones, guns, and missiles of any size provided they are in range. If bombers were limited to the base torpedo range, or 150-200% of torpedo range after bonuses, the ships would still be well inside 50km of their targets while engaging. At that range, it'll be 10 seconds before a flight of warrior IIs descends on the poor bomber. It'll be just lock time before an Amarr battleship swats the fly away with Scorch L. Bouncer drones will smack them instantly. HACs will be a single MWD cycle from point range, at which point the bomber is facing certain death.

All of those things considered giving bombers Siege launchers would make them even less effective against frigates, cruisers, and battlecruisers than they are now. So I must ask... is 200+ DPS from 100km+ not a sweet enough deal for an "anti-battleship" frigate as is? I'd take that over a Torpedo frig any day.

What was wrong with the old bomber role?

---

Originally by: Vitrael

---

On Torpedos on Stealth bombers:

Historically, the bomber's primary advantage in battle has been its ability to engage suddenly from long ranges for excellent damage (compared to other frigates). After bombers received their third missile hardpoint and decloak lock time bonus, they were extremely effective support vessels for quickly mopping up frigates and cruisers, especially when assisted by tackling recons. The bomber enjoyed its role at the expense of tank and versatility. It has really only ever had one role- glass artillery cannon.

Fast forward to Quantum Rise. The missile damage formula is (rather haphazardly) re-balanced to account for changes made to ship speeds in the same patch. The sudden importance of signature radius and target velocity in the "missile damage reduction factor" was not accounted for in the Stealth Bomber's bonuses. As a result, the bomber became fairly ineffective when attacking frigates (in particular interceptors) and fast, low signature radius cruisers. The ships were as effective as ever when dealing with battlecruisers and battleships, but just the same many bomber pilots took issue with the sudden change.

Now, Bombers could be easily restored to their previous state by adding a bonus to either missile explosion radius, explosion velocity, or both to account for the changes made to missiles in Quantum Rise. Instead, the Torpedo idea has suddenly arisen, a seeming non sequitur. Rather than restore the old bomber role you have chosen to completely throw it out in favor of a new one. What was the deciding factor in this?

Anyway...

What I don't like about Torpedos in general is that fitting them severely limits you when fighting anything with a sub battleship sized signature radius. Even tier 1 battleships (Typhoons, Geddons, Scorpions, Domis) get a damage reduction from torpedos due to their low signature radii (provided they are not MWDing).

This compromise seems reasonably acceptable to, for example, a Typhoon or Raven pilot who is expecting to engage other battleships or capitals. Those battleships also have additional means of dealing with frigates and cruisers that can avoid a lot of torpedo damage: spacious drone bays, slots for heavy neutralizers, and the likes.

Bombers have no such luxuries at their disposal, and are quickly fried by drones, guns, and missiles of any size provided they are in range. If bombers were limited to the base torpedo range, or 150-200% of torpedo range after bonuses, the ships would still be well inside 50km of their targets while engaging. At that range, it'll be 10 seconds before a flight of warrior IIs descends on the poor bomber. It'll be just lock time before an Amarr battleship swats the fly away with Scorch L. Bouncer drones will smack them instantly. HACs will be a single MWD cycle from point range, at which point the bomber is facing certain death.

All of those things considered giving bombers Siege launchers would make them even less effective against frigates, cruisers, and battlecruisers than they are now. So I must ask... is 200+ DPS from 100km+ not a sweet enough deal for an "anti-battleship" frigate as is? I'd take that over a Torpedo frig any day.

What was wrong with the old bomber role?

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

aa sure.. very safe. Uncloak at 100 km lock BS. fire... 20 secodns later you hit the BS for first salvo. But then that BS will have locked you and popped you with its 150 km guns.

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

Originally by: DiseL

---

I do not see this being viable if it is limited to Torpedo use only. The only time this would be effective is against a solo BS or BC or possibly a pair. How often do you see this? If there is any support the bombers are toast or at best get off one volley before warping which is completely useless unless you have 20 bombers. A good tackle will have you locked before you warp off or decloak you at close range. Sensor boosted HACs like the Zealot will insta-pop the bomber. The only change a bomber needs is three launcher hardpoints in addition to allowing a bomb launcher and possibly an explosion velocity bonus to make up for the crappy missile changes a few months back. I am not sure why everyone believes the Stealth Bomber should have an anti-battleship role. It's a Stealth Bomber, not a PT boat. Stealth Bombers can inflict massive amounts of damage on any size target with it's only defense being stealth capability and range. Why change the part of the ship that works (cruise missiles) and not even touch the part that needs significant tweaking (bombs)? If they want to change the role then focus on the bombs because it is called a Stealth BOMBER for a reason.

---

range is uselles!!! Any target that have any reason to fear the damage of a SB can warp out if you fire from range.


SB should NOT attack when SB zealots and munins are around. Same way an UBoat would NOT attack if a pair of ASW destroiers were around!

Something extra I would give. CCP give a ROLE PENALTY on ROF. And change from 10% damage per level to 15% damage per level!

---

Originally by: DiseL

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

Originally by: DiseL

---

I do not see this being viable if it is limited to Torpedo use only. The only time this would be effective is against a solo BS or BC or possibly a pair. How often do you see this? If there is any support the bombers are toast or at best get off one volley before warping which is completely useless unless you have 20 bombers. A good tackle will have you locked before you warp off or decloak you at close range. Sensor boosted HACs like the Zealot will insta-pop the bomber. The only change a bomber needs is three launcher hardpoints in addition to allowing a bomb launcher and possibly an explosion velocity bonus to make up for the crappy missile changes a few months back. I am not sure why everyone believes the Stealth Bomber should have an anti-battleship role. It's a Stealth Bomber, not a PT boat. Stealth Bombers can inflict massive amounts of damage on any size target with it's only defense being stealth capability and range. Why change the part of the ship that works (cruise missiles) and not even touch the part that needs significant tweaking (bombs)? If they want to change the role then focus on the bombs because it is called a Stealth BOMBER for a reason.

---

range is uselles!!! Any target that have any reason to fear the damage of a SB can warp out if you fire from range.


SB should NOT attack when SB zealots and munins are around. Same way an UBoat would NOT attack if a pair of ASW destroiers were around!

Something extra I would give. CCP give a ROLE PENALTY on ROF. And change from 10% damage per level to 15% damage per level!

---

So your telling me you have never seen stealth bombers warp in at range while tackle warp in at 0km.

---

Originally by: Vitrael

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

aa sure.. very safe. Uncloak at 100 km lock BS. fire... 20 secodns later you hit the BS for first salvo. But then that BS will have locked you and popped you with its 150 km guns.

---

150km guns? So here's the memo... if you engage a sniper battleship in a frigate with no tank at its optimal you will die.

This is obviously not the case for blasters, pulse lasers, autocannons, torps, all drones, etc. etc. Not every battleship in the game is a sniper. In fact, the vast majority are not snipers.

---

Quote:

---

Fix speed/mass to be like interdictors: a bit slower than AFs (but still appropriately fast for a small ship), but less agile than other frigates.

---

• no cov ops cloak

• do in crease cloaked speed. helps with positioning

• give people the choice or torps or cruise

• and make bombs less freaking costly and people will use them right

Originally by: NCP Bullet

---

as a bomber pilot im kinda stoked at the idea of being able to do different things. how ever i have also spent alot of time training the skills i need for the cruise missiles.....

i say let it be a choice ... you can fit either Torps or Cruise....

BOMBS..... Bombs are great. the guy that said a bomb launcher shouldn't take up a slot is missing the point... a SB is not going to be a one man one shot gank machine.... you need to decide am i going to shoot the normal stuff or the bomb! and fit your ship accordingly... and if you chose bombs then you are going to need friends...YEAH 1 bomb... ok not going to Nuke anything... 3 to 4 bombers all shooting a bomb.... you have a party a big exploding party. stop *****ing that you can't solo and make some friends... so in short.

• no cov ops cloak

• do in crease cloaked speed. helps with positioning

• give people the choice or torps or cruise

• and make bombs less freaking costly and people will use them right

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

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).

---

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!

---

Originally by: Ris Dnalor

---

you're doing it wrong.


Stealth bombers are paper. They're about uncloaking, dropping a bomb, and getting the hell out ( or possibly kamikazi and being blown up by their own bombs if the target is worth it ). Even at with 4.5 effective torp launchers they can't stick around a battlefield long enough to take down a battleship.

1. fix bombs.
2. Grant passive targeting ability while cloaked, meaning only need to uncloak to fire.
3. greatly increase damage modifier, greatly reduce rate of fire.

---

Originally by: IceAero

---

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

---

Originally by: Aeronith

---

Changing the weapon type for stealth bombers isn't as likely to get people using them as, say, letting them use covops cloaks.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Threv Echandari

---

@Polinus,
I didn't want to comment on other players comments (other than Meryn's ) and just keep it to the topic @ hand but......

1. Theres more to Eve PvP than 0.0 (I know its hard to see that out there but its true).
2. SB's are Team players and work well when others are doing the tackling for you.
3. 150KM Sniper BS Don't do squat @150KM when Sensor damped by 1 Bomber who keeps his Tranversal up (and thats after the Damp nerf.. granted the SB won't kill him. But its DPS that can't easily be negated by said BS.
4. It appears that you have never flown a Stealth bomber (at least in its role)
5. SB's are not solopwnmobiles... The Extra DPS from Torps @ 40KM will be laughed off as the SB dies a horrible death.

---

Originally by: Thenoran

---

Hmmm interesting, but Stealth Bombers and close range will never work under the current sytem, you will get auto-locked backed instantly, preventing you from cloaking, following by a short episode of wtfpwned.

On top of that, a player could just have his drones orbit and any Stealth Bomber that attacks him would have some serious problems.

Also, limiting Stealth Bombers to an anti-Battleship role reduces the amount of fun significantly, I spend a lot of my Stealth Bomber time in low-sec, mainly fighting Cruisers and the occasional Battlecruiser, a Battleship is somewhat of a rare sight outside of a big fleet.

What I had in mind of a Stealth Bomber is similar to a U-Boat, stay stealthed, fire and get out.
However in EVE, this can't be done, as you will get locked back and can't recloak.

Options

Let them use Torpedoes, but at ranges of about 60-70km or so, which is generally outside the range of most ships, but not by all that much. Give Torpedoes the needed velocity to make it viable to use them at those ranges to really scare the target, I'm talking 7500m/s or more here.

Modify the Explosion Radius bonus into a Radius & Explosion velocity bonus, but not as much as it was, give the Torpedoes a somewhat worse Radius and Velocity value than a Heavy Assault Missile.

Increased cloak velocity is good, I'd love to see that in action.

Increased CPU/Grid is almost a neccesity, so I applaud this.

Give Stealth Bombers the options to use both Siege and Cruise Launchers.
Siege Launchers would work well against Battleships, Cruise Launchers would work against Cruisers.

Other

If you really want Stealth Bombers up close, they HAVE to be able to prevent either getting locked (right now they have to choose between Sensor Boosters to lock targets fast, or Sensor Damps) very fast, or be able to cloak while locked for something like 5-10 seconds after decloaking.

---

Originally by: Ranger 1

---

Originally the definition of a stealth bomber was as follows:

1: A frigate sized vessel capable of mounting BS sized missile weapons.

2: A ship whose primary target was cruiser and BS class vessels as its weapons systems were not designed to deal with small, fast vessels. Its bonus to explosion radius was to enable it to do full damage against cruiser, which it could not do without said bonus.

3: A ship that approached its targets using its cloak and a speed boost when cloaked.

4: Its chief vulnerability was intended to be fast frigates and fast locking ships of all sizes.

If you wish to dispute any of the above, I suggest you look up the original dev blogs introducing stealth bombers to the EVE community.

Now look at your arguments or support of the changes in this light.

I'm not going to comment my personal views until I get my hands on one to try out, other than to say it is essential that the bomber pilots ordinance (whether it be torpedo or bomb) absolutely must still detonate if the bomber cloaks or warps out. Otherwise these proposals will not end up having the desired effect. The increased speed bonus makes the ship much more survivable and useful (it is vital actually), but survivability means little if you can not be reasonably effective as well.

---

Originally by: Jalif

---

I like it. It just takes 2 frigates to take down a BS ^^

---

Originally by: Marlenus

---

Edited by: Marlenus on 24/03/2009 22:19:45
I love the idea of my bomber getting an anti-battleship role. To me that makes much more sense than the "alpha-pop small ships" role that it used to have.

Forget the covert ops cloak. It doesn't make sense for the class. A bomber's cloak is for lying in wait -- it gives a huge advantage to the man who correctly predicts where the fight will take place, and then gets there first. I have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that an anti-battleship role is pretty pointless without enough alpha-strike to take advantage of the surprise conferred by the cloak. And as others have pointed out, there's no alpha to speak of here. Given the extreme close range, this won't be survivable. If you had a shot at killing a battleship in less than a lol-sized gang, that'd be OK -- but I'm not seeing that.

The other huge role that the stealth bomber has always had is area denial. Against anybody who doesn't have a fast tackler, you can come in at range and make them go away. This has many uses if you're doing anything except racking up killmails. And this role looks to be lost with the proposed tweaks.

As others have noted, torpedoes especially should be fire and forget. To use the submarine analogy, right now you have to surface, fire, and then stay on the surface until your torpedoes hit before you can "dive" (recloak). Submarines, of course, can fire without surfacing at all. We could maybe live with surfacing to fire if we could dive immediately (recloak).

Or, how about giving a range DECREASE on the torps but letting us fire cloaked, like a submerged submarine? Now, THAT would be funny. A battleship without support would have to GTFO, a battleship with support would have an excellent chance of catching and decloaking the bomber or (more likely) driving it out of range. Great fun to be had by all. (You might want to brighten up torpedoes visually, or make them leave an exhaust trail.)

The way I see it a fragile bomber has to get one of (a) impressive alpha; (2) the protection of range, or (3) some sort of better on-grid use of stealth. Asking us engage inside warp disruption range in a paper thin frigate we can't insure, with no chance of quick and decisive victory, just isn't going to work -- especially when we're already looking at a highly specialized ship class that's bonused for attacking one specific target category only.

---

Originally by: retro mike

---

Easy-To-Follow 3-steps to Make Torp Bomber Viable!!!!!



1. +12.5% damage and -50% rof.

3. 3 siege slots and a seperate bomb launcher.

3. Fix Bombs!



Grz

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

We do have enough ways of dealing with battleships so no need for another "counter" which will die to said BS anyways (really engaging geddon or AC pest with 5 bombers will leave you with 5 dead bombers).

---

Originally by: Spurty

---

Give em TP bonus as well ;0

Good lord, this will be a ton of fun if you do it!

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

I will use the Manticore for an example of what would be an appropriate fit, at Covert Ops V:



High:

3x Covert Warhead Launcher (5x cruise missile or 1x bomb each)
1x Covert Ops Cloak
1x Covert Cynosural Field Generator

Mid:

1x 1mn Microwarpdrive II
1x Small Cap Booster II
1x Medium Shield Extender II
1x Warp Disruptor II

Low:

2x Ballistic Control System II


Rig:

2x Any non-launcher rig (or launcher rigs, but requires max skills to avoid using a co-processor).

Bonuses:

Caldari Frigate: +5% bomb and missile kinetic damage and -16.66% cruise missile explosion radius per level.
Covert Ops: +5% bomb and missile damage per level, 96-100% CPU reduction for cloaking devices.

Role bonus: -100% recalibration delay, able to fit covert warhead launchers and covert cynosural field generators.

This puts bombers in their proper place in the T2 frigate line:

---

Originally by: Thercon Jair

---

If you reduce the bombers range of targets to BS and up you're going to limit their use even more than now.

---

Originally by: Thenoran

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

We do have enough ways of dealing with battleships so no need for another "counter" which will die to said BS anyways (really engaging geddon or AC pest with 5 bombers will leave you with 5 dead bombers).

---

Make them even less fun to fly be restricting what they can attack?
Also, if 20 T2 frigs could instapop a Carrier, Capital ships would be useless altogether.

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

.

---

I usually disagree with you. But about the anti capital ship weapon I wil open an exception and say would be great. But the issue arise in that there is no system in eve that has bonuses based on what its being used at. Therefore would need some coding to solve it.


Maybe.... stealth bombers being able to fit Citatel launchers? That woudl be 14k alpha strike (With the deemed 10% per level bonuses and 2 BCU) and about 430 dps. VERY good damage but only usable against capital ships or Battleships when heavily target painted.

I don't think insta popping a carrier is OK. Too much isk out without the target being able to do anything. But with this configuration 20 bombers can put a 1 rep carrier down in a few minutes. They can also be use das HUGE alpha strike after a capital is engaged and its being kept for example at low armor by enemy RR. huge alpha cross the armor and brign the fight back to hull etc,.....

That could be a CHEAP counter to capital blobs and help solve one of the big issues in modern eve warfare that is the excessive capital power.

---

Originally by: Seishomaru

---

Few things I disagree. Signature always helps. Most droens around a BS are ogres or hammerheads. Being very small helps a LOT on not being hit by the first salvo while they are still MWding towards you.


With torps and when you have enough alpha in team there is no reason to fire at 30 km. Fire at 3-4 km The enemy will have no time to react. If you carry a passive targeting (going along the idea some fitting capabilities could be changed) the BS will not auto target you. The enemy WILL take about 2 seconds to realise something is up (plus his own lag) and try to lock you. By that time he is dead.

Also when the guy blink yellow in overview he is not targeting you, he has already targeted. While he is targeting you CAN STILL CLOAK. I do it all fricking time!

---

Originally by: Jalif

---

Originally by: Seishomaru

---

Few things I disagree. Signature always helps. Most droens around a BS are ogres or hammerheads. Being very small helps a LOT on not being hit by the first salvo while they are still MWding towards you.


With torps and when you have enough alpha in team there is no reason to fire at 30 km. Fire at 3-4 km The enemy will have no time to react. If you carry a passive targeting (going along the idea some fitting capabilities could be changed) the BS will not auto target you. The enemy WILL take about 2 seconds to realise something is up (plus his own lag) and try to lock you. By that time he is dead.

Also when the guy blink yellow in overview he is not targeting you, he has already targeted. While he is targeting you CAN STILL CLOAK. I do it all fricking time!

---

Bomber would be a still a lol ship. First of all, you never see a BS alone, or barely.
Just to get enough alpha in the team you might need 20bombers and few interceptors for the job. Srry, but if I could choose between 20bomber+2ceptors or 22gank cruiser or 22recons or 22 battleships I know I would definatly not use for the first fleet setup. Atleast with the other setups I have the ablitity to engage more then 1 type of target. And the more large amount of targets I engage, the better I can deal with all the situations. I see a whole bomber gang being screwed over by just simple t1 frigates.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

.

---

I usually disagree with you. But about the anti capital ship weapon I wil open an exception and say would be great. But the issue arise in that there is no system in eve that has bonuses based on what its being used at. Therefore would need some coding to solve it.


Maybe.... stealth bombers being able to fit Citatel launchers? That woudl be 14k alpha strike (With the deemed 10% per level bonuses and 2 BCU) and about 430 dps. VERY good damage but only usable against capital ships or Battleships when heavily target painted.

I don't think insta popping a carrier is OK. Too much isk out without the target being able to do anything. But with this configuration 20 bombers can put a 1 rep carrier down in a few minutes. They can also be use das HUGE alpha strike after a capital is engaged and its being kept for example at low armor by enemy RR. huge alpha cross the armor and brign the fight back to hull etc,.....

That could be a CHEAP counter to capital blobs and help solve one of the big issues in modern eve warfare that is the excessive capital power.

---

That was exactly my idea. Tho i'd try to stay away from capital launchers because of price (said bomber would cost 100ish mil isk at which price its better to bring BS). Just give another role for bomb launcher or another module (anti-capital torpedo launcher or sth). But yeh the idea was huge alpha usable only vs caps.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

.

---

I usually disagree with you. But about the anti capital ship weapon I wil open an exception and say would be great. But the issue arise in that there is no system in eve that has bonuses based on what its being used at. Therefore would need some coding to solve it.


Maybe.... stealth bombers being able to fit Citatel launchers? That woudl be 14k alpha strike (With the deemed 10% per level bonuses and 2 BCU) and about 430 dps. VERY good damage but only usable against capital ships or Battleships when heavily target painted.

I don't think insta popping a carrier is OK. Too much isk out without the target being able to do anything. But with this configuration 20 bombers can put a 1 rep carrier down in a few minutes. They can also be use das HUGE alpha strike after a capital is engaged and its being kept for example at low armor by enemy RR. huge alpha cross the armor and brign the fight back to hull etc,.....

That could be a CHEAP counter to capital blobs and help solve one of the big issues in modern eve warfare that is the excessive capital power.

---

That was exactly my idea. Tho i'd try to stay away from capital launchers because of price (said bomber would cost 100ish mil isk at which price its better to bring BS). Just give another role for bomb launcher or another module (anti-capital torpedo launcher or sth). But yeh the idea was huge alpha usable only vs caps.

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

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.

---

Originally by: Jalif

---

Edited by: Jalif on 25/03/2009 13:03:10

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.

.

---

I usually disagree with you. But about the anti capital ship weapon I wil open an exception and say would be great. But the issue arise in that there is no system in eve that has bonuses based on what its being used at. Therefore would need some coding to solve it.


Maybe.... stealth bombers being able to fit Citatel launchers? That woudl be 14k alpha strike (With the deemed 10% per level bonuses and 2 BCU) and about 430 dps. VERY good damage but only usable against capital ships or Battleships when heavily target painted.

I don't think insta popping a carrier is OK. Too much isk out without the target being able to do anything. But with this configuration 20 bombers can put a 1 rep carrier down in a few minutes. They can also be use das HUGE alpha strike after a capital is engaged and its being kept for example at low armor by enemy RR. huge alpha cross the armor and brign the fight back to hull etc,.....

That could be a CHEAP counter to capital blobs and help solve one of the big issues in modern eve warfare that is the excessive capital power.

---

That was exactly my idea. Tho i'd try to stay away from capital launchers because of price (said bomber would cost 100ish mil isk at which price its better to bring BS). Just give another role for bomb launcher or another module (anti-capital torpedo launcher or sth). But yeh the idea was huge alpha usable only vs caps.

---

Principle is nice, but just using the stealthbombers as anti-capitals is just meh. Notticed that not everything is just capitals. There is also lowsec and non-capital fights.

EVEN with capital fights those stealthbombers are going to be useless. Want to know why? How are you going to tackle it? Just with 2 ceptors? Heavy Dictor? - Just shoot one of them down and good bye, capitals flies away. Whole fleet? Can't wait to see a whole bomber team being ****d by some smartbombs, interceptors, or warriors from other ships. Did I also mention sniping HAC's?

Other problem to use it against capitals. I've havent been in 0.0 often, but this aplies for lowsec to. If there is such a big fight going on with the drones out and all kind of ships zooming around & wrecks. If you get close, shoot, and you want to cloak again, you just might not able to because of one or another thing that is 2.5km away from you. You just try to co-ordinate such attack of bombers close range, while a 15BS fleet with 5 logistics still would kill a carrier OR 2 and still be able to engage other targets.

Trying to make bombers just anti-capital or anti-bs is not going to work at all since any other fleet combination will outperform. If you are using these kind of tactics you are basicly not using the "optimal" condition of each single member in your fleet.

The bomber as now is not going to chance anything but make it even more **** then it already is. Give it a damn role which other ships can't do. Like I said again, we got enough DPS ships in the game, enough variantion in between, We don't NEED another!

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

You don't need to tackle dreadnaughts. They tackle themselves very nicely for 10 minutes

---

Originally by: TooNu

---

Examples of torpedo combat.

A step by step 'what will happen for a torpedo using SB pilot fighting a battleship'.
- Circle your target area at some close 30-40km range.
- Circle target upon arrival.
- Engage torpedos.
- Uncloak.
- Engage mids and target.
- Fire. Wait.
- The target starts to target you disabling your cloak.
- The target moves to you to get you in disruptor range.
- Fire. Wait.
- The target opens fire. You are left with the choice of, "I can tank this damage" or "ouch, time to go"
- In which case you. Move to get out of disruptor range as you SHOULD be faster than a battleship, hopefully your tank holds.
- Continue to orbit at distance and damage him. Sadly in this case you can't warp jam him OR web him so he can get back to the gate/station OR he can warp away.

---

Originally by: Thenoran

---

Originally by: retro mike

---

Easy-To-Follow 3-steps to Make Torp Bomber Viable!!!!!



1. +12.5% damage and -50% rof.

3. 3 siege slots and a seperate bomb launcher.

3. Fix Bombs!



Grz

---

You still won't Alpha anything, you'll still get shot up, and even a single Bomb won't make much of a dent on a Battleship.

---

Quote:

---

You still won't Alpha anything

---

Quote:

---

you'll still get shot up

---

Quote:

---

Bomb won't make much of a dent on a Battleship

---

Originally by: Lionel Redstar

---

Well, this sux.
For a gallente who trained cruise just because they are the only missile that fits a SB, forcing me to train torpedo now sux. And the close range in a paper thin tank ship is a big no-no.

---

Originally by: Sepheir Sepheron

---

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!

---

just make bombs cheeper and easyer to use like 1mill a bomb. then you will see bombers jumping in to a gate camp and droping 6-7 bombs and killing hacs or smaller ship. to weaken the gang. if you bring in torps dont take out cruise's. and let them have there own slot for the bomb launcher. cos launching a bomb now is nearly a suside run (many things to go wrong). i like the speed incress it would make them the perfect tackler. sit some where wait for ratter then jump out tackle and torp lol you get nearly 3 vollys b4 they lock if its a bs. :)

Originally by: Vall Kor

---

Originally by: Lionel Redstar

---

Well, this sux.
For a gallente who trained cruise just because they are the only missile that fits a SB, forcing me to train torpedo now sux. And the close range in a paper thin tank ship is a big no-no.

---

Yea, I'll not waste more SPs in a gimped weapon system. Unless these torps can hit at 120+ KM away and are pretty much the same as cruise missiles are now...They are completely useless to a stealth bomber.

Want to fix SBs easy, explosion velocity, missile velocity, explosion radius bonuses....There done fixed, torps are a horrible idea.

---