EVE Search - [Proposal] Fire out CCP game designers "rebalancing" Stealth Bombers.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Fire out CCP game designers "rebalancing" Stealth Bombers.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE U.K.R.A.I.N.E United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.01 00:15:00 - [1] This is all about changes that were implemented in EVE for a past 2 years. And, in my part - about stealth bombers changes. Link for the interested: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1037660 I vote to leave bombers as is, except modifying explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles to 19,5% per level. This will allow bombers to fight against frigs/cruisers/hacs/BCs back. I don't want the people who never flew this ship to design it capabilities. Because they're absolutely incompetent.
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.01 00:34:00 - [2] this is not nearly as bad as the Nanonerf. It's like comparing Madrid bombings to the Holocaust 1000 times worse, and the people just stood and watched. I can't forgive the people responsible for that atrocity against game design.
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.04.01 00:59:00 - [3] Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 01:02:17 Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 01:00:43 Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE This is all about changes that were implemented in EVE for a past 2 years. And, in my part - about stealth bombers changes. Link for the interested: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1037660 I vote to leave bombers as is, except modifying explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles to 19,5% per level. This will allow bombers to fight against frigs/cruisers/hacs/BCs back. I don't want the people who never flew this ship to design it capabilities. Because they're absolutely incompetent. I'd be happy with a choice, torps OR Cruise. Pretty much the devs are screwing us out of a good ship.
Interghast	Posted - 2009.04.01 01:30:00 - [4] Not that it will do the slightest bit of good because CCP devs don't seem to play the game the way we do. There is more than sniper BS fleets and pos takedowns guys... As I've stated in the game dev thread one of the best features of eve is the ability to customise the fitting of a ship and finding new ways to use a ship that some other people write off as useless. Any policy change from CCP to make ships have very focussed single roles which break the options that players have is to be avoided. Almost every ship in the game has the option for short or long range weapons. Currently the bomber has cruise and bombs (though they are somewhat broken). So far many people have claimed that bombers are useless as is and need to be changed. Others like myself would welcome the option of torps or cruise because it opens up new situational tactics. However CCP seem to be slamming the door in our faces on this and would rather take a frigate which is very useful in small roaming gangs and turn it into an Anti Battleship platform without the damage or survivability for that role. How can a bomber be expected to survive within point and heavy neut range next to a battleship fielding drones? Range was the key to keeping a bomber alive and even then a single ceptor could get on top of a bomber with reasonable ease meaning the bomber having to warp out and back all the time. And even with these issues people found a use for them. Is the current bomber overpowered? It certainly cannot be described as a solo pwnmobile. Whilst it can lob cruise out to 150km they take so long to arrive that unless the target is tackled they will never kill anything. Will we adapt to the proposed changes should they be pushed to TQ, probably. Should CCP give options instead of trying to focus ships into a single role setup, yes!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2009.04.01 01:37:00 - [5] Yeah, they're doing silly things with a bad ship, that will probably make it worse in the end. Who the hell wants a 3-torp SB to kill a battleship when you can just use a 6-torp Raven? The COCD is nice, and the ability to use torps is fine, but taking away cruise and the ability to hit light stuff I just don't understand. These ships do not need nerfing. Originally by: Ephemeron this is not nearly as bad as the Nanonerf. It's like comparing Madrid bombings to the Holocaust 1000 times worse, and the people just stood and watched. I can't forgive the people responsible for that atrocity against game design. Oh, please. I seem to recall [url=http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371]1600+ people voting against it[/url] when it was proposed. Just because the devs did it anyways doesn't mean people were silent. Also, comparing game design decisions to the Holocaust? Always in bad taste. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting!
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.01 02:26:00 - [6] I make that comparision because it is strong enough to express how I feel
retro mike	Posted - 2009.04.01 06:20:00 - [7] Originally by: Ephemeron this is not nearly as bad as the Nanonerf. It's like comparing Madrid bombings to the Holocaust 1000 times worse, and the people just stood and watched. I can't forgive the people responsible for that atrocity against game design. OP is not talking about speed reduction nerf, however drastic this was, hes talking about the complete destruction of a ship class. The only point of which is to enable CCP to use the existing platform for an entirely new role.
Saggy Glands Amalgamated Transport And Trade	Posted - 2009.04.01 08:11:00 - [8] I'll vote for whichever CSM representative runs on the platform of bringing a meat cleaver to their meeting in iceland, with the intention of 'redesigning' the game dev responsible for this abortion of an idea.
Jalif Black Sinisters	Posted - 2009.04.01 09:04:00 - [9] \|Black Sinisters\|
Immersive Immersive Technology Solutions	Posted - 2009.04.01 09:09:00 - [10] Agreed, Leave the bombers as they are: A support harassment platform. Frigate vs Battleship is fail. Frigate vs Cruiser is win. Frigate vs Blob is lol. Cruise Missiles were perfect for this balance. Retain them! (Boost Explosion Velocity a tad though) --- New to the API? GrabRaw XML It's coming...

yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.	Posted - 2009.04.01 09:30:00 - [11] Do i want to see the current bomber removed from the game? - No Do i want to see a cloaky torp bomber introduced? - Yes Does "Fire out CCP game designers "rebalancing" Stealth Bombers." address either of these issues? - No Please delete this thread as it is an emo attack on the devs and replace it with a useful poll like "The new bomber should be introduced as a new ship not replace the old one." / Emo rage not supported
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 09:57:00 - [12] Originally by: yani dumyat Do i want to see the current bomber removed from the game? - No Do i want to see a cloaky torp bomber introduced? - Yes Does "Fire out CCP game designers "rebalancing" Stealth Bombers." address either of these issues? - No Please delete this thread as it is an emo attack on the devs and replace it with a useful poll like "The new bomber should be introduced as a new ship not replace the old one." / Emo rage not supported Sorry to ruin your day, but you're nowhere near the SB pilot if you saying that. I were lobbing the CO cloak for bombers, too, but with recent game changes, not only gameplay, but also the technical part, I can see what SB is and how it could be used properly without a CO cloak. I've run tests both in space and on paper to see how it performing. CO cloak on actual combat boat is a fail of game balance. Choosing between current SB as they are and proposed changes - I choose no changes at all. I can live with half damage to the ships of my size, but I can't live with zero damage. And 10 paper ships attacking a BS, without a chance to hide from it's guns is a fail. I disagree with the way this tipic was present, but issue itself should be addressed. SB need love, not raping. -- Thanks CCP for cu
yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.	Posted - 2009.04.01 09:59:00 - [13] New constructive thread started here. Can a mod please lock one of these 2 threads to prevent obscene amounts of double posting thx.
Nimrel Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates	Posted - 2009.04.01 14:42:00 - [14]
xena zena Comparative Advantage	Posted - 2009.04.01 16:58:00 - [15] I don't particularly like that they're switching weapon platforms from cruise to torps, this doesn't seem fair to anyone that's not caldari who's trained for cruise specifically for SB's. But I don't agree with the OP's suggestions either. 1. I'd like to see the current SB contiune to use cruise missiles, get the explosion radius bonus so it can better attack smaller ships and be able to use the covert ops cloak. 2. I don't think there should be a 30 second reactivation delay, since if anyone who's ever flown one will agree with, uncloaking will MOST LIKELY result in your death. Making most attacks a suicide mission. 3. I do think they should release a "heavy stealth bomber" class of frigs, that use torps and are specifically designed to fight battleships. 4. I think they should introduce a special new launcher for SB's that loads the regular cruise/torp (whichever it may be) PLUS also can load a bomb. That way SB's can tactically decide in battle which platform they want to use. Bomb's build cost should be reduced, drastically, down to maybe 1mil/unit. The current cost make's them impractical for any real pvp. They should fly a greater distance (faster) before they explode, and ideally some sort of tactical overlay/display to better judge where the explosion will take place instead of just guesswork. So basicly, keep the current SB, introduce a new ship class for the torp version, remove or greatly reduce recloak delay, and give some MAJOR love to bombs. I can't offer my support to the OP's proposal, it's too much of an attack then a serious proposal.
Zantaz	Posted - 2009.04.01 19:56:00 - [16] I vote that somebody forces Chronitis to actually fly a stealth bomber for a week. Then he can tell us all about how a ship made of damp tissue, used in the main for its alpha strike against small targets at long range, and not its long term dps, should be shooting battleships at 30km. It's like hunting moose with a paintball gun, ffs. The fix is so damn simple... remember how you nerfed cruise missiles? SB's use only cruise missiles (bombs ya right). DO YOU SEE A MOTHER****ING PROBLEM THERE??? Bonus the ship to fix the nerf! And if you could bring yourself to providing a little bit of extra fun, let them actually be stealthy, by warping cloaked, and give them a speed boost when cloaked. Still not any sort of solo pwnmobile, nothing unbalanced to worry your little head over, just a fun ship with a very limited use, still very easily killed by anything, still a ton of counter-measures to the ship. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with giving the players what they want once in a while? Why do you have to be such stingy bastards? Where's the fun? Ye gads, if Chronitis is any indication, can you imagine a CCP Christmas exchange? Everybody gets a pair of socks.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:20:00 - [17] Originally by: Zantaz I vote that somebody forces Chronitis to actually fly a stealth bomber for a week. 2 months at least. And even then it'd be not enough. We're flying them for our lives, at the very least. He'll be flying just to fly. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:55:00 - [18] let CCP make their new stealth bomber idea into a new ship. So we'd have 2 stealth bomber classes - one with cruise, one with torps
Seraphim Io Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.02 00:12:00 - [19] I am only support this because I want a cov ops cloak without a re-cloak timer. That's it, no more, and I will damn sure not be happy with anything less. The whole torp suggestion is way out of line. I seriously believe that these guys in charge have never really played this game, yet they are the ones providing all the changes. If they want a heavy bomber in the anti bs role make a t2 tier 2 bc "heavy bomber" and **** that up.... give me my untainted cov ops cloak and leaf meh be
Venomire GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.02 00:37:00 - [20] I'd rather CCP accidentally delete all database entries for Stealth Bombers, and accidentally delete them from the backups.

CrestoftheStars Caldari Recreation Of The World	Posted - 2009.04.02 05:23:00 - [21] not supported. i think the last two years have been the most improvement to the mechanic in the entire eve history, and the most improvement to balance issues. and the new bomber will be as it was supposed to be, a class cannon with stealth, that you need to fint the correct targets for. have you actually tested it out? i have and i think it is out preforming the old bomber on every turn ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.04.02 16:28:00 - [22] No Support. The stealth bomber has had no real role up till now. Now that CCP has finally declared one, I see why its such a good idea. Think of it in a real world setting (oh noes, he put it in real world settings. NO!!!). We have stealth bombers that come in, stealthily, delievers a big payload and then gets out of there. (Have you ever seen a bomber stick around after hitting its target?) This role seems good and I'm willing to give it a try. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart
Seraphim Io Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.02 21:22:00 - [23] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker No Support. The stealth bomber has had no real role up till now. Now that CCP has finally declared one, I see why its such a good idea. Think of it in a real world setting (oh noes, he put it in real world settings. NO!!!). We have stealth bombers that come in, stealthily, delievers a big payload and then gets out of there. (Have you ever seen a bomber stick around after hitting its target?) This role seems good and I'm willing to give it a try. --Isaac You think a volly thats 3/4 of that of a raven as a "big payload"...dude....
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.04.02 22:46:00 - [24] Originally by: Seraphim Io Originally by: Isaac Starstriker No Support. The stealth bomber has had no real role up till now. Now that CCP has finally declared one, I see why its such a good idea. Think of it in a real world setting (oh noes, he put it in real world settings. NO!!!). We have stealth bombers that come in, stealthily, delievers a big payload and then gets out of there. (Have you ever seen a bomber stick around after hitting its target?) This role seems good and I'm willing to give it a try. --Isaac You think a volly thats 3/4 of that of a raven as a "big payload"...dude.... sigh. This is a frigate and once again, comparing it to a battleship...seriously? You all are too drunk on the original idea of the Stealth bomber kpwning all the frigates. To be honest, the original had a pretty bad role. At least now they have set a role for it and then we can improve on it. Which is a hell of a lot better than a non-role. Now, you have a very agile and mobile DPS monster that can cloak and surprise people. Which is a pretty decent role. No, you won't be able to single-handedly destroy ships and never die. Which imo, was stupid in the first place. Now you are at least viable in a gang. More small gang than large gang I suppose. Btw, while we're comparing the frigate to Battleships. We should buff all HACs so they do more damage than a Battleship. /me end sarcasm. (See how stupid that comparison is?) --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart
HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE U.K.R.A.I.N.E United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.06 03:04:00 - [25] Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 06/04/2009 03:12:49 Originally by: Isaac Starstriker sigh. This is a frigate and once again, comparing it to a battleship...seriously? You all are too drunk on the original idea of the Stealth bomber kpwning all the frigates. To be honest, the original had a pretty bad role. At least now they have set a role for it and then we can improve on it. Which is a hell of a lot better than a non-role. Now, you have a very agile and mobile DPS monster that can cloak and surprise people. Which is a pretty decent role. No, you won't be able to single-handedly destroy ships and never die. Which imo, was stupid in the first place. Now you are at least viable in a gang. More small gang than large gang I suppose. Btw, while we're comparing the frigate to Battleships. We should buff all HACs so they do more damage than a Battleship. /me end sarcasm. (See how stupid that comparison is?) --Isaac If we're talking about the primary bomber's role as a terrorist actor that lives in the enemy's deep rear lines, hunts haulers and other shiptypes, so the bomber should be able to perform a solo action. The current Sisi bonuses allows solo-hunting haulers only. I dont see the way to kill even cruiser. The "old" bombers did allow frig/cruiser/BCs solo-hunting. If we're talking about the anti-battleship only role, then bombers definitely should gain the real devastating firepower. Because 15 seconds recloaking delay makes impossible to hide after the decloaking what means death in 5 seconds after being targeted. For example, current bonuses on Sisi shows me that manticore needs 30 volleys to kill fleet-snipe megathron. This is epic fail. Probably, as was offered in one of the already closed discussions, bombers should hit directly the structure, ignoring the shield and armor. In this way they will definitely become the nightmare for the battleships. UPD: all this was wrote down to make clear, that stealth gang of 5 bombers still isn't such effective as gang of 5 cloaking hacs against any shiptype. Even with all the penalties gained from the cloaking devices. Give people the reason to fly stealthies.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2009.04.06 03:24:00 - [26] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker sigh. This is a frigate and once again, comparing it to a battleship...seriously? You all are too drunk on the original idea of the Stealth bomber kpwning all the frigates. To be honest, the original had a pretty bad role. At least now they have set a role for it and then we can improve on it. Which is a hell of a lot better than a non-role. Now, you have a very agile and mobile DPS monster that can cloak and surprise people. Which is a pretty decent role. No, you won't be able to single-handedly destroy ships and never die. Which imo, was stupid in the first place. Now you are at least viable in a gang. More small gang than large gang I suppose. Btw, while we're comparing the frigate to Battleships. We should buff all HACs so they do more damage than a Battleship. /me end sarcasm. (See how stupid that comparison is?) The scarcest resource in combat is the pilot. A bomber takes one pilot, a Raven takes one pilot. The second-scarcest resource is cash, and after insurance it costs more to lose a bomber than a Raven. And for all that, the bomber does less damage and dies about a billion times faster. People fly HACs because HACs do things that battleships can't - speed and agility, mostly. Make bombers able to do something that battleships can't(like applying battleship-sized DPS to frigate-sized targets, to pick an example completely at random), and people will fly them when they want to do that thing. When you make them a pale pink imitation of a battleship, people will just use a real battleship. I'm not saying a bomber should always be better, but it should be better under some reasonable circumstances. I can't see what those circumstances would be for the proposed torpedo bomber. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting!
Another Forum'Alt Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.04.06 17:21:00 - [27] Guide to forum posting
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.04.06 17:42:00 - [28] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 06/04/2009 17:42:10 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Isaac Starstriker sigh. This is a frigate and once again, comparing it to a battleship...seriously? You all are too drunk on the original idea of the Stealth bomber kpwning all the frigates. To be honest, the original had a pretty bad role. At least now they have set a role for it and then we can improve on it. Which is a hell of a lot better than a non-role. Now, you have a very agile and mobile DPS monster that can cloak and surprise people. Which is a pretty decent role. No, you won't be able to single-handedly destroy ships and never die. Which imo, was stupid in the first place. Now you are at least viable in a gang. More small gang than large gang I suppose. Btw, while we're comparing the frigate to Battleships. We should buff all HACs so they do more damage than a Battleship. /me end sarcasm. (See how stupid that comparison is?) The scarcest resource in combat is the pilot. A bomber takes one pilot, a Raven takes one pilot. The second-scarcest resource is cash, and after insurance it costs more to lose a bomber than a Raven. And for all that, the bomber does less damage and dies about a billion times faster. People fly HACs because HACs do things that battleships can't - speed and agility, mostly. Make bombers able to do something that battleships can't(like applying battleship-sized DPS to frigate-sized targets, to pick an example completely at random), and people will fly them when they want to do that thing. When you make them a pale pink imitation of a battleship, people will just use a real battleship. I'm not saying a bomber should always be better, but it should be better under some reasonable circumstances. I can't see what those circumstances would be for the proposed torpedo bomber. Why I flew the Purifier before it was nerfed: Good damage in a frigate package. (and now that's being upgraded) Has the ability to cloak (and now that's being upgraded) Is very agile and quick (and that's being slightly upgraded and downgraded. Oh well, I'll live) Makes a decent scout (and that's being upgraded slightly) Could surprise my enemies (that's being upgraded) Pretty explosions (Even better! lol) And now with the upgrades, this only makes me want to use the Stealth Bomber more. Now that it can be used with the Black Ops better, that just makes the class better. The Battleship cloaking (not including the BO) idea simply doesn't compare to the Stealth Bomber. You lose lock time and speed. Oh and the "it doesn't do different damage than the BS" is simply, BS. lol. We already have frigate-sized frigate killers. (Assault Frigates) Why do we need another platform for one? My 2cents. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Open
Seiver D'amross Subach-Tech	Posted - 2009.04.07 11:25:00 - [29] i say make a new class for there "rebalanced" bomber _____________________________________________________ I shal stand tall and shake the heavens with my power


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.