Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Baudolino
Gallente Royal Crimson Lancers
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:41:00 -
[361]
I do not support any of these bonuses..
Increasing the cloaked velocity of the stealth bomber was a much better idea. Having it move at high speed on the grid, able to decloak, engage and re-cloak makes it a terror in any engagement.
30 sec re-cloak delay is a death sentance- for this to work it would need a total rework of stats- i suspect this would push it towards a bigger chassis.
I think a close quarter brawler like depicted in this description works better for tech III cruisers or BOs..
In my opinion stealth bombers should remain as they are, but with much higher cloaked velocity bonus.. |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:52:00 -
[362]
How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute.
Stick with cruise and range bonuses.
|
Tyby
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:01:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida What exactly is preventing them from retaining the ability to use cruise launchers?
The listed attributes would be sweet if we had a choice between cruise/siege, both for range and target types.
The narrow focus on anti-BS makes for a very limited range of engagements where another ship-class would not be better. Allowing for cruise would broaden this to include anti-cruiser hull at the cost of lower damage output.
this
|
DeTox MinRohim
Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:02:00 -
[364]
Please rename the class as "PEEKABOO Bomber"...
Since there is nothing "stealthy" to be within 30km of a fat target with a 30seconds delay before recloaking shooting pumpkins.
Oh and paint a target on it too while you're at it. Not that anything smaller than the fatty will need it anyway but you never know. Plenty of noob pilots out there unable to lock within 3 seconds a "PEEKABOO Bomber".
Thanks! ------ This sig space is Read-only ! omgalink - Online Skillsheet |
X1994
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:11:00 -
[365]
The new bonuses are awesome, but i think the cloak reactivation delay should only be 20 seconds.
|
BetaZ
Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:19:00 -
[366]
Is CCP willing to redistribute my skills? I've trained for Cruise, but now I have to reskill for torps. There are legal issues here (false advertising, bait and switch, product misrepresentation, etc). CCP can try to stand behind their ToS, but ToS's are not codified in stone in the court of laws.
This change is a conscious and unnecessary change with financial consequences--it takes time to retrain and retraining cost actual money.
CCP should at least give it some thoughts. We, the customers, should also not allow CCP to unilaterally "extend" our subscriptions through coercion.
|
Evlyna
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:25:00 -
[367]
Originally by: BetaZ Funny stuff
Please - do try.
Refocusing a ship/mod removes in no way your ability to use said ship or the modules you trained for. Just not the way YOU used it before.
Better luck next time but feel free to go for your little vendetta.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:26:00 -
[368]
the explo velocity bonus is useless because the explo velocity is too small to have a good performance gain. a 5-7.5% explo radius bonus would be much better.
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:39:00 -
[369]
Originally by: BetaZ Is CCP willing to redistribute my skills? I've trained for Cruise, but now I have to reskill for torps. There are legal issues here (false advertising, bait and switch, product misrepresentation, etc). CCP can try to stand behind their ToS, but ToS's are not codified in stone in the court of laws.
This change is a conscious and unnecessary change with financial consequences--it takes time to retrain and retraining cost actual money.
CCP should at least give it some thoughts. We, the customers, should also not allow CCP to unilaterally "extend" our subscriptions through coercion.
you can still use Cruise Launchers in ravens and typhoon. SO you have no reason there.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:49:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Interghast
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Good SB pilots were usign uncloak fire clsoe range and recloak .
CLose range SB is ok, as long as you can recloak immediately. A NORMAL cloak with speed bonus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. than a cov ops with targeting delay and no speed bonus.
Some SB pilots liked to get in close, fire then reclock, but that was just one way of using them.
The ability to choose a setup to fit your playstyle or tactics for an op is one of the better parts of eve. Sadly CCP's recent "discussions" over "focussed roles" seems to be to get previously long ranged ships into a close range furball (the brawler falcon idea, bombers with 25km range torps as tested on sisi) which just tips the balance in favour of bigger (and thus slower) ships.
Currently I like to hang around at range assisting my gangmates with damps and cruise from 100km once a target is tackled or lob cruise missiles 200km at a falcon to scare them off (I note that the falcon range is now pretty much untouched if you fit 3 sda which most people I know already do, thus this bomber nurf neatly removes a viable anti-falcon platform...)
Agree with you on the cov-ops cloaking though, I'd rather have the current improved cloak than cov-ops cloak with recloak delay even though warping cloaked would be fun.
I guess CCP would rather we flew a cruise raven with a cloak instead of the current bomber. It can put out more alpha, can fit 3 ballistic controls, more ewar (or tank) and has options with drones and neuts to avoid getting tackled while aligning (plus it works out cheaper due to T1 insurance payout on loss).
Not saying an "alpha strike" bomber in close range is a bad idea as an option for those who want to risk it, but we already have that option (to a degree) with bombs, which have not been looked at since the speed changes and missile explosion velocity nurf.
My major point is. Close range risky SB usage is ok. But will NOT Be with cov ops cloak because the cost of the ship will DOUBLE! ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
|
Tamahra
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:50:00 -
[371]
the whole concept of the SB having a limited role only on battleships sucks ass. Id rather mount a raven than a SB then, and wouldnt even lose as much isk if i lose it because of the insurance, and not having fitted an expensive cov ops cloak
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:51:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 13:54:22 All I can say is damage needs to be increased a lot against all targets. Hitting for around the same damage as cruise missile while losing ALL defense is not an improvement. SBs should get a major bonus to sig reduction (hard for anything to hit it), speed increase (i.e. use speed as a defense?), and a RoF bonus (lay the pain down and bug out?). If you can not lay the pain down on the target and then GTFO this ship will not be worth flying in a 'wolf pack' setting, Rifters would be a much better (and much cheaper) option for Black Ops/Hit and Run attacks.
SBs still need lots and lots of work. The torp idea will only work if you pair it will a falcon if that BS has ANY support you die way to quick to even consider using an SB in a hit and run op. Unless you can magically give us SOLO targets to hunt? Which in my limited experience in wolf packs doesn't happen often enough to even bother counting.
Also, check in to the other recons and bring the other races up to speed with Caladri, if not only Falcon (rooks) would be a viable option to fly with this new nerfed to hell SB. The other recons can not lock a target out so the SB can sit in suicide range to apply their damage over the mintue or so of fighting to kill one target, that need to be adjusted to these recons are actually worth it in this new world of no-tank BS brawling.
TLDR: This new SB if it stays close to were it is on test, is going to need too much support to even bother with bringing on a wolf pack type of hunt. You'd be better off putting cloaks on T1 ships and call them cov-ops ships. |
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:54:00 -
[373]
Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 13:56:06 Ah so the truth comes out with CCP's proposal to buff Black Ops:
Quote: For now, we have been able to allow covert cynosural fields to be activated in cynojammed systems so a covert ops fleet could bridge/jump into a cynojammed system and perhaps one of the side benefits of certain changes to other certain ships will be that quite a deadly combination for taking out the jammers is possible for the innovative strategists amongst you
So the Cruise Stealth Bomber is the sacrificial lamb in this whole affair - the new toy for alliance 'strategists' to play with. So why was not this made apparent at the start of this post???
Why is CCP taking the unprecedented action of killing the cruise bomber???
What about all the non-alliance pilots that use the cruise bomber???
Why cant EVE have two types of bombers - Yes two!!
(CCP Chronotis these questions are directed at you btw)
grz
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:56:00 -
[374]
Originally by: OneSock How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute.
Stick with cruise and range bonuses.
with target painters... 4 hounds.. 1 TP each. Can insta pop a HAC. 1 shot.. 1 kill..
|
Tamahra
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:00:00 -
[375]
Originally by: retro mike
So the Cruise Stealth Bomber is the sacrificial lamb in this whole affair - the new toy for alliance 'strategists' to play with. So why was not this made apparent at the start of this post???
Why is CCP taking the unprecedented action of killing the cruise bomber???
What about all the non-alliance pilots that use the cruise bomber???
Why cant EVE have two types of bombers - Yes two!!
because its like in every other mmo. They got a toy that the players are having fun with, and then at some point some puddinghead dev steps in and swings the nerfbat on the funtoy for a reason only he himself could ever grasp. But hes so convinced about the nerfbatswinging hed never listen to the customers. And then some months later they suddenly see that they have screwed up a nice aspect of the game, only to have to tweak it again. Ive seen that happening alot throughout the years.
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:00:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Polinus
Originally by: OneSock How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute.
Stick with cruise and range bonuses.
with target painters... 4 hounds.. 1 TP each. Can insta pop a HAC. 1 shot.. 1 kill..
As long a he has his MWD on and sitting still. |
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:00:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Vall Kor Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 13:54:22 All I can say is damage needs to be increased a lot against all targets. Hitting for around the same damage as cruise missile while losing ALL defense is not an improvement.
Turn back the nerf clock for missiles? Dont get me started on that one lol!!!
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:09:00 -
[378]
Originally by: retro mike
Originally by: Vall Kor Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 13:54:22 All I can say is damage needs to be increased a lot against all targets. Hitting for around the same damage as cruise missile while losing ALL defense is not an improvement.
Turn back the nerf clock for missiles? Dont get me started on that one lol!!!
That would fix all that is wrong with the SB. Sadly, the devs hate missile systems. It didn't need a nerf, now if missiles were like turrets where they did their damage instantly then they would have needed to be adjusted.
Oh well maybe the devs will actually listen to the SB pilots. |
Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:16:00 -
[379]
This is not a stealth bomber buff, but another slam of a nerf for missiles boats
CCP, I would prefer you just leave the bomber as is (on TQ) rather than nerf it. It is clear that the majority of people do not understand proper stealth bomber tactics, and those are the same people who think shooting a death star pos with a frigate is a good idea.
1. Bombers don't need to fit covop's cloaks, the 30s activation delay (that you put on transports and then took off because you realized it was a terrible idea) is too harsh a penalty. Bombers are fine with prototype and improved.
2. Torps suck. CCP made that clear when they cut explosion velocity of missiles down to nothing. You are taking a glass cannon, removing its damage potential and putting it within warp disrupt range. I smell many more stealth bomber wrecks in the coming days. CCP is trying to sell us that roaming gangs and most pvp occur with battleships? When was the last time you saw a battleship pvping that wasn't apart of a 50+ fleet shooting another bs fleet? Or lowsec gate camping? Those are about the only situations, and both are fail locations for a stealth bomber.
3. Torpedo explosion velocity is like all the other missile velocities is garbage to begin with. Even a 100% bonus would only put the explosion velocity in the 120m/s-140m/s range. Speed tank anyone? Even Large artillery would hit someone going that speed, but cruise and torpedoes at any range get speed tanked. Point being, they need explosion velocity bonus AND a signature bonus if you are going to force the changeover to torps. 450 sig is just insane to come from a frigate class ship, with no way of changing that value.
4. Bombs in actual fights other than "Lol lets go play with bombs" situations are so rare, and for good reason, the system still sucks. Again sig radius, flight time, pretty much all of the mechanics of the bomb lead to an extremely small opportunity to use them. If anything don't change anything on the stealth bomber itself, but fix bombs! Make it so you can warp off before the bomb goes off and have it still detonate! Then you would see people use it.
The thing about the eve community, most of us move to the ships and fittings that are good, because they are, when people aren't using a ship or setup, that means it is not good. Stealth bombers can currently do some pve, and can currently do some amazing pvp. Change them and you won't see anyone pve (same reason why almost no one using torps on a raven anymore, dmg, range, etc) and fewer will use it in pvp.
Tinfoil hat time! I predict that ccp is pushing this change and other changes from in the coming months to move us towards the T3 cruisers. Note that stealth bombers can't hit cruisers for full damage anymore. Note the other cruiser class ships getting hit with a nerf (falcons, rooks, and the rapier). CCP wants their veteran players, those who used to fly effective ships, to switch over to their new T3 toys, which have similar bonuses as the force recons we used to know and love.
Either fix what you are breaking. Or don't "fix" the situation as it stands.
------- A rose, by any other name, would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation." |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:20:00 -
[380]
To focus this ship on the design goal, that being to make it a ship that is a significant threat to battleships in a stealthy frigate platform while keeping it very vulnerable to small support craft and drones, here are my thoughts on tweaks to the current strategy.
Problem:
People are not liking the feeling of being forced to warp out (whether due to drones or eventually being locked by the target, if nothing else) before they have a chance to do significant damage despite the high Alpha. This problem exists even for a small wolfpack of these vessels, which is the most likely scenario for their use(solo pwnage is not very realistic, and the mental picture most of us have is of a bomber group to be honest).
Possible realistic solutions that achieve both design and pilot goals (while still being fun and challenging for all concerned):
1: A reduced sig radius to increase the targets lock time. This can be further improved by the use of sensor damps on the bombers, and still leaves the ships vulnerable if drones are already deployed or to support craft. This is acceptable, and allows the SB to stay on station longer before being forced to warp out, and if tweaked properly may allow peek-a-boo tactics to be employed despite the 30 second delay.
2: A significant ROF bonus would allow the SBs to bring a much larger volume of fire to bear on the target. I know that a ROF fire is used sparingly to avoid lag issues, but it would go a long way into giving the SB pilot the feeling putting serious damage on target with their glass cannons. Equally important it encourages the pilot to wait until the last second to warp out/attempt to recloak. IE: Cmon baby, just 5 more seconds and I'll get another full volley off before I have to bail. I can do it! There are few sights in game more satisfying than seeing a stream of your Torps about to impact on your target, and it will serve to separate the over impulse from the level headed pilots.
These two tweaks in combination would significantly improve the effectiveness of a SB wolfpack without making the vessel a solopwn machine or broadening its desired target selection. More importantly it would make the ship more fun and satisfying to fly, while at the same time reinforcing the need of a BS pilot to at least have drones out in a defensive posture (or better, reinforce the value of having light support nearby).
===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you. |
|
place1
Amarr Orion Ore Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:33:00 -
[381]
Going to have to admit it :( I was wrong about SB needing a Cov Op Cloak the 30 sec recloak delay is way to harsh for the benefit of a cov op cloak.
Suggestions Allow Cov Op Cloak as is but also allow Improved and Prototype cloak with a 5 sec recloak let the player make the choice of Cov Op and 30 sec or Non Cov op and 5 sec.
As for people complaining about Torps and close range go test it out I really like the use of Torps the damage is very nice even to smaller ship's.
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:35:00 -
[382]
I think it really boils down to how bad missiles are compare to the devs love turret based weapons, I think the community would be better served if the devs took a long look at missiles. A system that does not do instant damage, has long flight time vs a system that can reach the same distances as missiles and has no flight time. Yep, that those dang missiles needed that nerf, they almost got to 300DPS!!!!
Really just leave the SB alone, and rethink the missile formula. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:40:00 -
[383]
There must be something wrong with your missiles. Mine are much more effective since the QR boost.
Contract them to me and I'll have a quick look at them.
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:47:00 -
[384]
Originally by: place1 Going to have to admit it :( I was wrong about SB needing a Cov Op Cloak the 30 sec recloak delay is way to harsh for the benefit of a cov op cloak.
Suggestions Allow Cov Op Cloak as is but also allow Improved and Prototype cloak with a 5 sec recloak let the player make the choice of Cov Op and 30 sec or Non Cov op and 5 sec.
As for people complaining about Torps and close range go test it out I really like the use of Torps the damage is very nice even to smaller ship's.
I did test it and the damage increase at the cost of ALL defense is not worth the trade off. The damage would need to be increase 1000 fold before the loss of defense made this change worth while. |
Paradigma
Minmatar Konstrukteure der Zukunft
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:57:00 -
[385]
as a dedicated SB pilot i know a thing or two about tactics with these cloaked ships. nowadays SBs are not easy ships to fly - they require a gang of at least 4 or 5 SBs together with 1 or 2 other support ships. then you have a very nice small gang, that can engage pretty much any target they choose.
SBs are already best used at close range - 30km is the ideal distance to the target. your only chance to survive ANY engagement, is not to get locked. the moment you are locked and see missiles, drones, etc fly towards you, it's pretty much game over. that's why you have to constantly play a game of decloak, target, fire, cloak.
that's exactly what makes SBs fun to play - they require you to constantly take action, look at your distance, sensor damp the opponent, etc.
a recloaking delay takes away very much of the player interaction - and makes SBs less fun. i never felt the need for a covert ops cloak - crawling in from an Out Of Grid safe spot towards your enemy lets you engage your target completely unnoticed.
if i only had torpedo launchers on my SB, i know the game would be much less fun. you simply dont find lone battleships in 0.0 - but you get a lot of cruisers and hacs.
in conclusion i just have to say: PLEASE ccp, ask a couple of people who actually fly SBs (and know what they are doing) - the only thing that's wrong with SBs are the bomb launchers, which could really use a small boost. otherwise SBs are perfect - not overpowerd, not invincible, not really pwnmobiles, just very fun to play. and that's what this game should really be about, right?
|
Amberle Vale
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:01:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Vall Kor I think it really boils down to how bad missiles are compare to the devs love turret based weapons, I think the community would be better served if the devs took a long look at missiles. A system that does not do instant damage, has long flight time vs a system that can reach the same distances as missiles and has no flight time. Yep, that those dang missiles needed that nerf, they almost got to 300DPS!!!!
Really just leave the SB alone, and rethink the missile formula.
Agreed, missiles are issue here not the stealth bomber.
|
Gner Dechast
Flashman Services
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:10:00 -
[387]
Originally by: X1994 The new bonuses are awesome, but i think the cloak reactivation delay should only be 20 seconds.
While I disagree with you completely about this being awesome...
I welcome differing opinion here, honestly.
However, why is that positive feedback is only a few lines at most? I would love to hear why someone would think this is great and why would someone think this would even work.
Perhaps you don't want to submit your opinions to the raging resistance that is likely to flame - that I can relate with, ofc.
However, I would like to see some posts that atleast try to bring out well founded reasons for their liking of this change. -- No expansions before holidays and no release until QA gives it's approval |
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:13:00 -
[388]
Originally by: Vall Kor
Originally by: Polinus
Originally by: OneSock How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute.
Stick with cruise and range bonuses.
with target painters... 4 hounds.. 1 TP each. Can insta pop a HAC. 1 shot.. 1 kill..
As long a he has his MWD on and sitting still.
seems you don understand current game mechanics. Sicne QR if you raise target signature high enough his speed does not matter! Your explosion vel is 100 your explosion radius is 200. His signature is 400 and his speed is 200. He takes FULL damage.
4 TP can bring a Deimos signature (without MWD on) to 530 m. They are accumulative geometric progression modifiers. VEry effective when several ships put 1 each on the target.
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:14:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Vall Kor I think it really boils down to how bad missiles are compare to the devs love turret based weapons, I think the community would be better served if the devs took a long look at missiles. A system that does not do instant damage, has long flight time vs a system that can reach the same distances as missiles and has no flight time. Yep, that those dang missiles needed that nerf, they almost got to 300DPS!!!!
Really just leave the SB alone, and rethink the missile formula.
Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:55:00 -
[390]
I have been reading the responses in this thread for a while, and just decided to toss my two isk in.
I personally don't have any torpedo experience. My main is an Amarr pilot, and I trained up missiles only for the purpose of flying a bomber. I don't mind training up another missile type - I'll survive, it makes me more flexible. I'm sure a lot of the people whining here are the same people who use the old and tired "adapt or die" line but just can't take the heat themselves when THEIR toy is being altered.
If nothing else, it is further encouragement for me to cross-train into Caldari ships - already have some missile skills, all I need now are some shield skills.
The capability to warp in cloaked is, in my opinion, a great boost to the bomber's capabilities. AFAIC, it was the one boost that it really needed. The problem is that 30 second re-cloaking delay. A bomber is too paper thin to remain vulnerable for so long, which will probably lead to "Warp in, Fire, Warp out" tactics. If the volly damage was high enough I would be okay with this, but it doesn't appear to be the case. The bomber's cloak IS its tank. It needs that cloaking ability.
If the trade-off between the CovOps cloak is that 30 second delay, the bomber would be better off with the original speed bonus for cloaking and no re-cloaking delay.
If it received a signature bonus to MWD use (or give it an even smaller base signature radius), similar to what interceptors get, that might help too - then at least it could speed/sig tank until it could recloak. But honestly, at that point, if it is able to effectively speed tank then there isn't much need for the cloak at all. It would turn into 'Interceptor With Torpedoes' and I'm not sure that is what people want (or is it?). What would an interceptor be able to do that a bomber couldn't at this point?
It could still be tackled by an interceptor, or neuted, which seems like a good tradeoff. It would be vulnerable to a gang with some fast ships or a neut boat, but quite deadly to a solo battleship as long as it doesn't get drone aggression.
I'm curious to see how this will perform against cruisers with a painter (or two) applied. I'm going to jump on Sisi later tonight and play around with the ship once my account there trains up torpedoes. Or, would a GM be able to give me a skill adjustment so that I could test immediately?
The idea that had been mentioned earlier about allowing it to fit a citadel launcher is intreagueing.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |