EVE Search - Sticky:[Phoebe] Stealth Bombers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Phoebe] Stealth Bombers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Kleb Zellock Control-Space DARKNESS. 2	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:31:00 - [271] - Quote Aram Kachaturian wrote: Kleb Zellock wrote: All the other peasants should find there way to an instanced foam covered themepark rather than dirty up your tear farming utopia? You read in my mind, good job. Hardcore players need contents to show their eliteness and flatter their ego. By the way, im getting laid multiple times by week. You are my new god.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 147	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:31:00 - [272] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail m Mike, the changes are good overall, but the best idea here was the one about making sig radius less of a factor for bombs so that there is not a disparity in their effect on shield ships vs. armor ships. Bombers drive armor doctrines. While a nerf to bombers in any form will help shield ships, specifically addressing the issue of bombers being so effective against shield ships is something that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I like the changes as they are from the decloaking to the reduced maneuverability along with the buffs to other areas.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2346	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:32:00 - [273] - Quote I'm just gonna point something out: In the dark times of yore, when bombers decloaked each other, we still managed to bomb stuff just fine, as did NPSI organizations like bombers bar. At least that's where I learned how to do it right back then. Personally, I welcome these changes. Bombing should take some modicum of skill and practice. Although isboxed bombers need to go die in a fire ("in game"), they're literally the ebola rotting this game from the inside.
Aram Kachaturian Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 127	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:33:00 - [274] - Quote PinkKnife wrote: Really? Show me the news posts them? And show me how often and how successful it was prior to 2012. http://archive.evenews24.com/page/4/?s=bomb&submit You are welcome. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
Herrin Asura Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation 6	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:34:00 - [275] - Quote Aram Kachaturian wrote: PinkKnife wrote: We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable. There's a reason you didn't see massive bombing ops prior to 2012, because it was ******* impossible. We tried, and failed everytime. Successful bombing runs were making the news for welping entire BS/Cruiser fleets prior to 2012. Sorry if you werent good enough with your crew to be able to do that. Watch out, we have a badass over here. There is no point in not making it possible for a stealth bomber fleet to know exactly where each other is located to avoid decloaking. We can fly with warp speed but we can't create an encoded signal for our fleet members to transmit our coordinates?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 921	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:34:00 - [276] - Quote Alright, I gotta play the Devil's Advocate here -- a lot of people are saying that the decloaking changes are meaningless because ISBoxed bombers can set differing warp-to distances. There may be some merit to other arguments regarding ISBoxer bomber fleets, but this isn't one of them -- a bombing wing with a player behind every hull can do this too, with a little bit of coordination in the fleet channel. e.g.: FC > pick warp to targets please joe > 30,000 steve > 15,000 perry > 40k aloysius > 40k perry > f*** off aloysius i picked 40k first aloysius > no you go straight to hell zach > pap link pls This tactic is available to both ISBoxered bombers and groups of discrete individuals. It's only a little easier for ISBoxered bombers since you don't have to deal with that jerk Aloysius. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
MIkhail Illiad Fevered Imaginings End of Life 57	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 - [277] - Quote All looks pretty good except one thing. Why would you roll back the changes that were made to cloaking? That is a step backwards in terms of game design is it not? Not only is it another MAJOR nerf to smaller groups but it doesn't seem to achieve anything other than annoying ISBoxers. There once was an interesting signature here... It has long since disapeared.-á
Lugh Crow-Slave Guardians of the Morrigan 147	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 - [278] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail m Mike, the changes are good overall, but the best idea here was the one about making sig radius less of a factor for bombs so that there is not a disparity in their effect on shield ships vs. armor ships. Bombers drive armor doctrines. While a nerf to bombers in any form will help shield ships, specifically addressing the issue of bombers being so effective against shield ships is something that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I like the changes as they are from the decloaking to the reduced maneuverability along with the buffs to other areas. maybe lower their exp radi and damage??not to sure how the formula works so this may not be a good idea
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 170	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:37:00 - [279] - Quote Querns wrote: Alright, I gotta play the Devil's Advocate here -- a lot of people are saying that the decloaking changes are meaningless because ISBoxed bombers can set differing warp-to distances. There may be some merit to other arguments regarding ISBoxer bomber fleets, but this isn't one of them -- a bombing wing with a player behind every hull can do this too, with a little bit of coordination in the fleet channel. e.g.: FC > pick warp to targets please joe > 30,000 steve > 15,000 perry > 40k aloysius > 40k perry > f*** off aloysius i picked 40k first aloysius > no you go straight to hell zach > pap link pls This tactic is available to both ISBoxered bombers and groups of discrete individuals. It's only a little easier for ISBoxered bombers since you don't have to deal with that jerk Aloysius. Alyosius alt appearing on the forums in 3...2...1... He was also flying a Drake at the time
Aram Kachaturian Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 127	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 - [280] - Quote Herrin Asura wrote: Watch out, we have a badass over here. Thank you, "Herrin Asura" from " Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation" I'm not the only one tho, Pasta is badass. We have the first bounty hunter of all time in our rank after all An alliance of badass delivering badass contents. Get good and you are welcome to join us. Official Poster:-áhttp://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)

Domanique Altares Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 3400	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 - [281] - Quote Aram Kachaturian wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: you haven't been laid since you moved back in with your mother. Quote: Maybe he has been getting laid since he moved back in with his mother. That's rude and offensive. I'm sorry that you find alternative sexual lifestyle choices offensive. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh
Lugh Crow-Slave Guardians of the Morrigan 147	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 - [282] - Quote MIkhail Illiad wrote: Why would you roll back the changes that were made to cloaking? That is a step backwards in terms of game design is it not? as for why it may be meta and times have changed what didn't work then works now. I don't believe this but it may be their thiking
Capqu Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 787	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:38:00 - [283] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: [ sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack Yes, I am following this and collecting feedback Yes, I have ties with Bombers Bar and Spectre fleet Yes, I think it is a bit much though I doubt it will 'kill the lifestyle' because players are too damn stubborn to die that easily I am askign for what are the top two changes you would like dialed back or modified? If you don't want to say it here, feel free to send me an evemail m when the OP of the balance thread contains blatant misinformation as justification you know the actual knowledge in the area is going to be sparse. please consider who is saying what before you take their opinions on board. imo a nerf to bombing was needed, but isboxed bombing is the real problem. since ccp will not consider balancing in such a way to make isbombing harder in relation to normal bombing, balance dictates that the only viable form of bombing is going to be isboxed post patch. as csm i feel like its your duty to help ccp realise that this is unacceptable seen as balancing towards increased revenue by a lot of players which is imo disgusting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
MIkhail Illiad Fevered Imaginings End of Life 57	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:40:00 - [284] - Quote The players define the "meta" based on the changes that CCP make to the game. Not the other way around. There once was an interesting signature here... It has long since disapeared.-á
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Ixtab. 1918	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:40:00 - [285] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Porucznik Borewicz wrote: Chiimera wrote: Great work killing bombing runs completely. Cloaked ships decloaking other cloaked ships would be fine IF fleet members could actually tell where each other are. +1 to this all the way! Let me see cloaked gang members in space please. sadly this would be abused by spies in fleet guiding decloaking 'ceptors through the pack Haha that it the worst excuse you could have made :) If you would have said "eve code doesn't allow for such" then that is something we can understand but the off chance of a spy guiding someone within 2km of a cloaked fleet mate is a pretty ridiculous suggestion. You should find out if it is possible to have cloaked fleet mate show up and if it is, push for it. If it isn't, this change shouldn't happen and instead, ISboxer should be banned. +1
Valterra Craven 290	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:42:00 - [286] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes. We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable. I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed. If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that. That's fine and all, but why aren't you addressing people's legitimate complaint about cloaked members of a fleet not being able to see each other and therefore can't try to manage their distance to one another. IMO that is the single most important aspect here and you are throwing it to the wind.
Kari Trace 27	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:42:00 - [287] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Let's talk Stealth Bombers! Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. Obligatory 'please god no'. #newtacticesalreadyworkedout I like making things explode. Kari Trace
GeeShizzle MacCloud 487	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:43:00 - [288] - Quote Black Canary Jnr wrote: Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap. Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0 learn to super symmetry u ass!
Fluoroantimonicacid Nullbear Tear Extractors Mordus Angels 3	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:43:00 - [289] - Quote I do not think people realize what you just created, or they are being quiet about it because of how overpowered it is. The killmails I get with this will be epic, although I hope I get to have fun before it is nerfed. Edit: Thanks for the extra dps and cargo too, those will go well with the structure ehp decreases. -Replicator
Quesa D00M. Northern Coalition. 38	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:44:00 - [290] - Quote I like some of this, think some of this is too much together and then some just ridiculous. The rebalance of ship resources has been needed for a couple of the bombers for a while now, more specifically, the Nemesis, which suffers from a lack of CPU like most other Gallente ships. I'm not sure I like the improved EHP in combination with the weaker agility and larger sig radius. We do run anti-bomber ships in fleets and they can already lock and kill bombers with ease and I think those people complaining that bombers can't be tackled, haven't really tried. This is an area where the meta is there to counter bombers but just isn't used because they would rather min-max a fleet than be thinking of other concerns. In this area, I would much rather have the bombers somewhat homogenized as their role is the same, across racial ships. I saw the cloaking change coming for a long while now. As someone who does a lot of covert work (not just bombers), this is a pretty big annoyance, yes I can deal with it but with the other changes stated, I think it's a bit much as a package. The change of the resist profile and reduction of raw HP of bombs is a bad change. Smartbombs already easily pop bombs and there isn't a need to improve this ability. You don't see people fly with smartbombs, specifically to wipe off bombs, because the smartbomb radius is rather small so this change seems worthless. I can deal with the change in bomb speed and flight time. Buff to Bomb Deployment effect, I can't argue with that. Anti-capital void bomb...it's a great idea but the 1m range makes it seem ridiculous. The idea of a bomb that specifically affects a single target is just asinine. Give them the same hp/damage stats as the current void bomb and increase blast radius to 30k. Tune the cap neuted a bit but keep the expl radius to make them nearly useless against non-mwd'ing battleships. I would also suggest that you make ISBoxer a 3rd party tool that is not allowed to use with Eve Online. The only reason I can think of why it's still legal to use is that it makes CCP more money because it is botting. I would also like to suggest that you revert combat probing to it's previous iteration, or something like it. The sub-10 second probe scan did a lot to hurt long range comps and greatly increased the deadliness of bombers considering you can easily time a scan to give results just as a fleet hits the grid. This means that you can have your bombers in warp before fleets can move their ships.

Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 838	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:44:00 - [291] - Quote One of my esteemed colleagues in PASTA said it right: the problem with bombers is not the bomber, but the damage application of bombs. BOMB EHP The adjustment of bomb HP and resists on the basis that now medium named and T2 smartbombs will be able to destroy them is just foolishly optimistic. The range on medium smartbombs is 4k meters. The AoE on bombs is 15,000 meters. The range on large smartbombs is 5000 meters. I'm not saying it can't be done. But it usually isn't because the range on bombs is so much larger than on smartbombs. The chances of actually being in range of a bomb with a smartbomb that can kill it are very small. Good luck on that. You'd be better off shooting them down with turrets. 400 sigRad on bombs, yo. But can they be targeted? I've never actually tried it. Bomber sigRad/agility/EHP Bombers did not need a nerf to sigRad or agility. Nor did they need more tank. They could already be insta-popped by a double sebo insta-cane without links in exactly 3 seconds. The changes to align times range from almost nothing on the Nemesis to more than a second on the Manticore. Now they are all approximately 9 seconds, base. With skills and rigs, it goes down to 4-5 seconds, which is almost exactly identical to the current align times of 5-6 seconds. gg What you did do was increase bomber EHP to levels significant enough to allow them to survive that insta-cane's alpha more frequently. CCP Fozzie, you have actually made bombers more durable and harder to kill! The damage increase as a result of sigRad on a bomber has always been negligible, which is why bombers often fit an MSE for the extra buffer. With these changes, that all level 5 insta-cane can lock a bomber in 2.3 seconds instead of 2.7. Don't mind the server ticks rounding both up to 3 seconds. These changes are at best pointless and in once case actually counter-productive! Fitting buff The fitting changes may make certain fits like the MWD+MSE fit a little bit easier. But they won't change anything important except perhaps making the Nemesis not total and absolute ** for everything. So for that I thank you. but the others didn't actually need it. Cloaking behavior reversion I've flown bombers extensively for years. The previous mechanics were a huge pain. But it was doable. However, it will do nothing to ISBoxed bombers because they never make mistakes once they are set up right. The reason this change was originally made was to make bombers using bombs actually viable; and they are. It does not change the effectiveness of bombing runs in any way. The cloaking behavior reversion will momentarily inconvenience ISBoxing bombers until they adjust their default warp-to distances on each client to warp at 0, 3k, 6k, 9k, and so on. It bans ISBoxer or it gets the hose. Oh, wait. Actual players already got the hose. gg nvm. The current cloaking mechanics are fine and should remain in place for reason already stated in the first full paragraph above. Fix bombs! BOMB flight time and velocity This is one of the few bright spots in the proposed changes. The reduction of bomb velocity and proportional increase to flight time will finally allow the use of Microjump Drives to escape bombing runs. With a 12 second flight time, it will be possible for an on-the-ball pilot to MJD away from the bombs before they hit. Currently that is not the case. Bomb Deployment Skill Still useless except for unlocking T2 bombs/launchers. Capital Void Bombs So, explosion radius of 4000m. Does that mean a BS with MWD on will lose 7500 cap? For reference, a Baltec Megathron has about 6000 max cap. Well, at least it has an AoE of 1 meter. So unless everyone is piled on top of everyone else, it shouldn't be broken vs subcaps. However, it will only take 10 of these to completely neut out an all 5 Avatar. No need for neuts on your subcaps when you can just drop a few of these. Should also work really well for bombers hot-dropping on ratting carriers or caps using gates. 10km Dictor probes Most of the uses for dictor bubbles are for bubbling large numbers of ships in fleets where a large area is preferred, or bubbling gates, which requires at least a 12km range. For anti-bomber work, you still want a bigger AoE because that allows the dictor to launch earlier, and cover more area per launch. They last plenty long enough as it is. I'm not saying there won't be a use for these and I think initial enthusiasm will get a lot of these sold on the market. But once people realize that the purpose of an AoE weapon is to cover area, the extra duration will not be as desirable. Still, I'm in favor of more ammo choices for dictor bubbles. Looking forward to future iterations. Conclusion and Suggestions** These changes will not change the effectiveness of bombing runs. They will make bombing more difficult for players to execute successfully, but not so for those that rely on ISBoxer. That being said, I've never considered ISBoxer to be that big a problem for bombers. I've never seen more than about 8 bombers being used in this manner due to the mechanics of bombs. Eliminate or give us a way to reduce the sigRad bloom of shield tanks. Then we can take a look at the fitting habits of shield tanks vs armor tanks and perhaps realize that most armor tanked ships dedicate more slots to tanking than shield tanks, as well as having more viable modules, most especially ones that require NO FITTING beyond 1PG for an 8% unpenalized multiplicative increase in armor. For example: WTF free rigs in mah lows with no drawbacks! Introducing a skill that reduces signature radius bloom from shield extenders would be a good first step. Taking another look at the damage application of damage bombs and perhaps adjusting them to fall off somehow (a la DRF in the missile damage formula) would also help. "Remember remember the 4th of November!" Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
Lugh Crow-Slave Guardians of the Morrigan 147	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:46:00 - [292] - Quote MIkhail Illiad wrote: The players define the "meta" based on the changes that CCP make to the game. Not the other way around. no it is a circle you have to balance your game with how your players will react to it / how they are reacting to it, especially in a game that gives so much freedom to the player
Jessica Danikov Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 412	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:48:00 - [293] - Quote Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 198	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 - [294] - Quote I'm all for most of these changes, particularly the decloaking aspect being brought back - the skill will have to come back into organising bomb runs. The only change that concerns me, and which I'd rather not go ahead, is the extended travel time for bombs. 10 seconds is already a long time and changes to ships has created a large number that are much quicker into warp; the extra 2 seconds might not seem much but it's a lifetime during a bomb run for targets getting away either through warp or simply straight line speed out of the AoE. If you have to do this I'd say it requires an increase in the AoE to compensate for those targets that might be able to burn out of the damage range - say you chose an arbitrary speed of 1250m/s as a balance point, 2 seconds would give a 2.5km increase in AoE radius. My strong preference is to leave this aspect alone please.
Black Canary Jnr Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance 122	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 - [295] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: Black Canary Jnr wrote: Thank you for showing an appreciation for physics and not allowing 50 bombers to occupy the same space, while cloaked, whilst not being smushed into a ball of scrap. Realism 1, Bomber fanboys 0 learn to super symmetry u ass! Multiverse FTW!
Lugh Crow-Slave Guardians of the Morrigan 147	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:50:00 - [296] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: Now that I think about the capital neut bombs, I'm not sure they're the greatest idea ever. I mean, Triage and Sieged capitals are going to be essentially screwed as they can receive no remote assistance for the entirety of the cycle. You can possibly expect for the meta to shift towards buffer-tanked Naglfars and Phoenixes due to their capless weapons with dreads, while for carriers, Slowcats and the like remain quite healthy due to capchaining and become even more prevalent as the alternatives get nerfed even harder into the ground. i feel siege and triage either need to negate or significantly reduce the effect of these bombs they will still be use full on caps out of such states as well as on suppers but it wont make triage useless outside of LS
ArmyOfMe PILGRIMS Advent of Fate 360	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:53:00 - [297] - Quote Go CCP Go Love the coming changes (though you should not have reduced the penalty for hauling ships) QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
h4kun4 Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 18	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:53:00 - [298] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Cloaked ships will once again decloak each other if they come within 2km. This ruined my day
Evora Pirkibo Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 18	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:55:00 - [299] - Quote Bad cloaking change is bad. The rest pales in comparison to the scale. Honestly CCP, this 6 week cycle seems to be producing half baked ideas. If you need 12 weeks in the oven than take it, I for one am sick of soupy brownies. Get your **** together.
Bl1SkR1N Euphoria Released Triumvirate. 37	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:56:00 - [300] - Quote Nice changes. Did you give a thought to torps tho? Could use a but of tweaking.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: 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.