EVE Search - Bombers and Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Bombers and Battleships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 24	Posted - 2015.04.20 15:24:57 - [1] - Quote Can we please hurry and get the nerf to either bombs or bombers? Back in November CCP was considering making cloaked ships able to decloak each other again, then went back on that because people complained. The biggest factor in making battleships nearly non-existent in null sec is bombs, as much as people may complain about the 2au/s warp speed (and it does suck). Bombs are a completely broken mechanic because it is possible for 7-8 bombers to land cloaked on grid, decloak, fire, then warp off and in less than 13 seconds be able to wipe out an equal or greater number of ships. Of all the ships in EVE they are the only ones capable of doing this, and it is specifically against battleships, and to a slightly lesser extent battlecruisers. In their other role as small torpedo boats there is no issue with bombers, typically for hot drops or to a lesser extent roams and structure bashing. They are small, inexpensive ships that are relatively easy to train into and do good damage to large targets. Also in their role as torpedo boats they may or may not fit a cloak as it is not used in an offensive manner like with bombing runs. Over the weekend I got a few other people together to do a battleship roam because I miss the old days before bombs when I actually got to use my Tempest, and despite the relatively short notice I actually got a significant number of people who were also excited about going out and shooting stuff with slow lumbering battleships instead of the typical null sec meta of only cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Shortly after we set out, people on intel channels heard that we had battleships in the area they quickly formed an 8 man bomber fleet and ambushed us. Thankfully we were sitting on a gate and most of us jumped out in time so we only had 1 loss, but it speaks to how overpowered bombs are against battleships when a 40 man fleet with about 25 battleships and battlecruisers has to be concerned about being wiped out by 8 guys in ships that are at best 1/10th the value of the opposing fleet. There are a number of things that could be implemented to reduce the effectiveness of specifically bombs while not nerfing bombers in their other roles. Actually go through with the plan to make cloaked ships decloak each other so that there is some additional warning either with active D-scan vigilance while they are in warp or seeing a cluster of bombers land on grid in your overview to give you a few extra seconds to have anti-bomber ships try and knock out some of them or give battleships extra reaction time to spread out and avoid damage. Proximity decloaking would 90% of the time only affect bombers that are clustered and preparing to do a bombing run and it would only be a minor hindrance to other ships that fit cloaks. Make bombs do less damage as it radiates out from the center of the impact zone. This would make it so that bombs aren't the current 30km AOE nuke that can wipe out every subcap of a large enough sig radius in the entire blast zone. Doing decreasing damage as the blast radiates outward from the impact zone would also make accuracy important for doing maximum damage against a specific target. Make it so that there is a firing delay after decloaking of some type, either bombers have to have a target locked to fire, or a flat delay after decloaking. Making defender missiles a point defense tool to counter bombs/ allowing small ships to target bombs and shoot them.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 638	Posted - 2015.04.20 16:53:26 - [2] - Quote That is only a tiny portion of why battleships don't work. You know you can't throw bombs in empire space, right? Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
unidenify Plundering Penguins 98	Posted - 2015.04.20 17:38:03 - [3] - Quote maybe make it easier for battleship to lock bomb itself and shoot it down by increase bomb sig rad to 600m? it is my understand that bomb need 12 sec, and if sensor is fast enough you may able to shoot them off.
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 25	Posted - 2015.04.20 18:05:05 - [4] - Quote unidenify wrote: maybe make it easier for battleship to lock bomb itself and shoot it down by increase bomb sig rad to 600m? it is my understand that bomb need 12 sec, and if sensor is fast enough you may able to shoot them off. You currently can not target bombs with any ship, they are like probes. There are only 2 ways to stop a bomb once it is in flight, shoot the bomber before he warps off (still hard to do with quick locking anti bomber ships) because if the bomber dies, the bomb does no damage. The other option is to try and use smartbombs to firewall, and hope you kill the bombs before they land (which is also incredibly difficult to do).
Lugh Crow-Slave 1068	Posted - 2015.04.20 18:19:35 - [5] - Quote unidenify wrote: maybe make it easier for battleship to lock bomb itself and shoot it down by increase bomb sig rad to 600m? it is my understand that bomb need 12 sec, and if sensor is fast enough you may able to shoot them off. yes it takes 12 and it takes under 10 for your MJD to activate however i do think you should be able to target bombs but it should only be practical with frigs or desis not battleships themselves Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1128	Posted - 2015.04.20 18:28:28 - [6] - Quote making anti bomb defender missiles in utility highs would be a good solution, ofc some battleships may not be able too use that option even if some re-jiggling of highs did happen, looking at the rokh and apoc as they have no damage bonuses, and bc's would have 1 spare high. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 460	Posted - 2015.04.20 18:31:00 - [7] - Quote Harvey James wrote: making anti bomb defender missiles in utility highs would be a good solution, ofc some battleships may not be able too use that option even if some re-jiggling of highs did happen, looking at the rokh and apoc as they have no damage bonuses, and bc's would have 1 spare high. And people might finally have a reason to not fly 200 of the same ship. The horror. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 260	Posted - 2015.04.20 18:53:05 - [8] - Quote Acel Tokalov wrote: stuff stuff Make it so that there is a firing delay after decloaking of some type, either bombers have to have a target locked to fire, or a flat delay after decloaking. Making defender missiles a point defense tool to counter bombs/ allowing small ships to target bombs and shoot them. I really like defender missiles working against bombs, because you only need to take out 4 bombs to pretty much halve the damage of the run I also quite like the idea of bomb launchers having a cloaking recalibration delay..... basically bombs are currently broken because they are too hard/practically impossible to defend against, for the potential damage they can cause For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3322	Posted - 2015.04.20 19:40:02 - [9] - Quote Thing is, anything the OP suggests makes bombers impossible to use, and that's bad.
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 25	Posted - 2015.04.20 20:14:21 - [10] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Thing is, anything the OP suggests makes bombers impossible to use, and that's bad. Please elaborate how any of those things would make bombers impossible to use. I honestly think bombs are probably one of the worst features in EVE and single-handedly make an entire class of ships nearly worthless in null sec, I would be happy if bombs were removed entirely.

Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 261	Posted - 2015.04.20 20:14:35 - [11] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Thing is, anything the OP suggests makes bombers impossible to use, and that's bad. with a recalibration delay on the bomb launcher, they don't become impossible, merely harder (assuming the right balance is struck - obviously a 120s recalibration would make them impossible to use) I would concede that in big fleets if defenders could defend against bombs that might completely castrate bombers... however, OP is not wrong in that there is too little risk for too great reward in using them (too much DPS and virtually impossible to counter if piloted half-well) For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 329	Posted - 2015.04.20 20:28:44 - [12] - Quote A scan a killboards reveal one thing. Bombs are not killing all the battleships. In fact they are not killing many at all. If bombers need to be nurffed because bombs kill them every now and then, sentry drones should really get removed. BS are getting used. They have problems however compared to HACs and so lots of other ships are used in preference. We roam in BS just fine and we don't get bombed off the field all the time. In fact hardly we get bombed almost not at all. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1128	Posted - 2015.04.20 22:28:45 - [13] - Quote Quote: Make bombs do less damage as it radiates out from the center of the impact zone. This would make it so that bombs aren't the current 30km AOE nuke that can wipe out every subcap of a large enough sig radius in the entire blast zone. Doing decreasing damage as the blast radiates outward from the impact zone would also make accuracy important for doing maximum damage against a specific target. This i like -Point of impact = full damage (sig radius dependant ofc) - Shockwaves = could have a delayed damage, speed based say 1km/s 25% less damage per 10km's, this would give you a chance too burn too a safer distance too take less damage, or potentially outrun the explosion entirely. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2063	Posted - 2015.04.21 00:49:59 - [14] - Quote Or.... we could give Battleships double the buffer. Which achieves the effect of Nerfing bombs relative to BS, without screwing bombs up vs everything else. Because any Nerf to bombs still leaves cruisers being superior to BS in every way. If BS's are lumbering & slow but with massive buffer, they become far more individual as a class.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3322	Posted - 2015.04.22 16:44:45 - [15] - Quote Acel Tokalov wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Thing is, anything the OP suggests makes bombers impossible to use, and that's bad. Please elaborate how any of those things would make bombers impossible to use. I honestly think bombs are probably one of the worst features in EVE and single-handedly make an entire class of ships nearly worthless in null sec, I would be happy if bombs were removed entirely. The decloak doesn't make them impossible, I'll admit, just much, much harder to use in anything that even resembles a co-ordinated fashion, which is how you HAVE to use them to fight large numbers of battleships. People would, most likely, not be using them the way you think though, as any warning at all is enough fr the dictors to get in place, the anti-support to overheat SEBOs etc etc. You'd certainly never see another fleet wiped out by ~12 waves of bombers again. Less damage by range again makes them useless against the only real target they have - blobs. Bombs are not used against a specific target, that is not what they are for. Bombs are used to blow up blobs. If they can't do that, there's no point to them. Given that it is not uncommon for a wing of bombers to take losses on a run right now, how many do you think would ever actually get a run off properly if there was a firing delay? Any kind of a delay like you suggest would make the bombers impossible to use against any fleet that has anything that even resembles support. Speaking as a person who flies said support over line battleships, that's every single one. And allowing bombs to be shot out of space by defenders or by support, again, makes it impossible to actually get a bombing run off against an even halfway competent blob. Why, exactly, do you feel that the only tool to beat a blob should be another blob?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1128	Posted - 2015.04.22 17:29:41 - [16] - Quote they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 542	Posted - 2015.04.22 19:19:31 - [17] - Quote Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1128	Posted - 2015.04.22 19:47:40 - [18] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? point being there are plenty of ships smaller than battleships that can do just as much dps and/or tank just aswell but with the advantages of a smaller hull. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 543	Posted - 2015.04.22 20:02:51 - [19] - Quote Harvey James wrote: James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? point being there are plenty of ships smaller than battleships that can do just as much dps and/or tank just aswell but with the advantages of a smaller hull. okay, now I get it, and agree to a point. No cruiser can match the raw DPS of a similarly fit battleship, but they can apply much more of that DPS to anything other than battleships on up. But, t3s are unmatched in subcaps for EHP when brick fit, and have stellar non-resist mitigation to boot. HACs can't manage the same EHP, but still have that stellar mitigation Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.04.22 20:15:39 - [20] - Quote Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective.

James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 543	Posted - 2015.04.22 20:22:54 - [21] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective. But would ruin them for ambush play with torps. The mechanics are all good mechanics. The issue is the numbers inside the mechanics are skewed in certain directions. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1129	Posted - 2015.04.22 20:44:52 - [22] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective. But would ruin them for ambush play with torps. The mechanics are all good mechanics. The issue is the numbers inside the mechanics are skewed in certain directions. also.. they wouldn't be stealth bombers anymore.. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 611	Posted - 2015.04.22 22:59:56 - [23] - Quote elitatwo wrote: That is only a tiny portion of why battleships don't work. You know you can't throw bombs in empire space, right? this really. It be warp speed I'd be looking at off the top of my head. Assuming OP had half the stuff in place he asked for they'd still have this problem. BS's slow boating, emphasis on slow, this bomber wing would have a decent amount of time to stage themselves to not decloak each other. Also kind of wondering why fc made the call to jump when scouts reported 8 non blues that weren't showing up on d-scan. If no scouts...well that was a bad call to start with. even on cruiser roams you should leave some room for frigs really imo.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.04.22 23:22:28 - [24] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective. But would ruin them for ambush play with torps. The mechanics are all good mechanics. The issue is the numbers inside the mechanics are skewed in certain directions. yeah that's fine and all, I'm just not sure why the hulls that can bring the most destructive power in the game to baer also gets invulnerability through invisibility. I simply think bombing runs and fighting bombing runs would be cooler if you actually had to dodge lead on your way in.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 611	Posted - 2015.04.23 00:06:06 - [25] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: James Baboli wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective. But would ruin them for ambush play with torps. The mechanics are all good mechanics. The issue is the numbers inside the mechanics are skewed in certain directions. yeah that's fine and all, I'm just not sure why the hulls that can bring the most destructive power in the game to baer also gets invulnerability through invisibility. I simply think bombing runs and fighting bombing runs would be cooler if you actually had to dodge lead on your way in. cloaked ships can't do anything.....invincibility at the cost being a paperweight. barring ninjya hot drop a good scout and the scouted can work out potential problems if they think really hard about the situation. 8 targets you can't find. 8 targets not decloaking to jump the lone scout. Spidey sense should be tripping hard. I know from cloaked camping...I do not decloak for scouts. I want to see and potentially kill what scout is scouting. So does the camp as a whole. Jump the gun, kill the scout, what it is scouting finds any other gate to use...except the one you are on the other side of. Soooo....scout lives. When not cloak camping I remember this. Someone taught me this...I am guessing many know this too lol. Bombs are los weapons, you have them going from op (maybe...we can leave open to debate really) to useless. frigate that flies in straight lines to set up the bomb run for seconds is a dead frigate. Especially when the most common fit for these is MSE fit. Straight-line flgiht, fatter sig radius....boom. Frigate dropping bombs while keeping traversal is basically playing darts drunk....and blind folded to use an analogy.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 133	Posted - 2015.04.23 01:02:40 - [26] - Quote Killboards suggest that battleships are dying to cruiser size ships with battleship DPS in the form of sentries, and not bombs.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6714	Posted - 2015.04.23 02:30:35 - [27] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Killboards suggest that battleships are dying to cruiser size ships with battleship DPS in the form of sentries, and not bombs. Time to make a thread about cruiser size ships with battleship dps in the form of sentires and battleships ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 612	Posted - 2015.04.23 03:47:31 - [28] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Killboards suggest that battleships are dying to cruiser size ships with battleship DPS in the form of sentries, and not bombs. Time to make a thread about cruiser size ships with battleship dps in the form of sentires and battleships wouldn't be an eve thread with a tie in to a ship whose name we don't even need to mention. what's funny is besides no decloak in groups no changes to bombers was ever made really (well the nice makeover but that was cosmetic). It was just one day some peeps started a trend and it took off. Even before this change to group flight. I call this sour grapes after looking at eve history tbh. Bombers weren't a problem until the days of Titan AOE ended. Mainly because with titan AOE fleet wiping power was in the hands of the larger/richer crews. Of course they didn't mind fleet stomping AOE in this format...only they could afford it. My tin foil moment idea anyway. It was all fun and games to bring massive AOE...until it was switched to ships the "scrubs" could afford.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 85	Posted - 2015.04.23 05:02:50 - [29] - Quote Acel Tokalov wrote: Can we please hurry and get the nerf to either bombs or bombers? Back in November CCP was considering making cloaked ships able to decloak each other again, then went back on that because people complained. The biggest factor in making battleships nearly non-existent in null sec is bombs, as much as people may complain about the 2au/s warp speed (and it does suck). Bombs are a completely broken mechanic because it is possible for 7-8 bombers to land cloaked on grid, decloak, fire, then warp off and in less than 13 seconds be able to wipe out an equal or greater number of ships. Of all the ships in EVE they are the only ones capable of doing this, and it is specifically against battleships, and to a slightly lesser extent battlecruisers. In their other role as small torpedo boats there is no issue with bombers, typically for hot drops or to a lesser extent roams and structure bashing. They are small, inexpensive ships that are relatively easy to train into and do good damage to large targets. Also in their role as torpedo boats they may or may not fit a cloak as it is not used in an offensive manner like with bombing runs. Over the weekend I got a few other people together to do a battleship roam because I miss the old days before bombs when I actually got to use my Tempest, and despite the relatively short notice I actually got a significant number of people who were also excited about going out and shooting stuff with slow lumbering battleships instead of the typical null sec meta of only cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Shortly after we set out, people on intel channels heard that we had battleships in the area they quickly formed an 8 man bomber fleet and ambushed us. Thankfully we were sitting on a gate and most of us jumped out in time so we only had 1 loss, but it speaks to how overpowered bombs are against battleships when a 40 man fleet with about 25 battleships and battlecruisers has to be concerned about being wiped out by 8 guys in ships that are at best 1/10th the value of the opposing fleet. There are a number of things that could be implemented to reduce the effectiveness of specifically bombs while not nerfing bombers in their other roles. Actually go through with the plan to make cloaked ships decloak each other so that there is some additional warning either with active D-scan vigilance while they are in warp or seeing a cluster of bombers land on grid in your overview to give you a few extra seconds to have anti-bomber ships try and knock out some of them or give battleships extra reaction time to spread out and avoid damage. Proximity decloaking would 90% of the time only affect bombers that are clustered and preparing to do a bombing run and it would only be a minor hindrance to other ships that fit cloaks. Make bombs do less damage as it radiates out from the center of the impact zone. This would make it so that bombs aren't the current 30km AOE nuke that can wipe out every subcap of a large enough sig radius in the entire blast zone. Doing decreasing damage as the blast radiates outward from the impact zone would also make accuracy important for doing maximum damage against a specific target. Make it so that there is a firing delay after decloaking of some type, either bombers have to have a target locked to fire, or a flat delay after decloaking. Making defender missiles a point defense tool to counter bombs/ allowing small ships to target bombs and shoot them. Let us asume that all enemy bombers have the Cov-Op-¦s skill to 5 so you had to handel an volley of 64k. If you can-¦t get that amount of ehp on a battleship you deserve to die. I mean really most BS i have are 150 k or more. For that you would need about 3 bombing runs. To prevent bombing you can : - Use am MJD (7.5 sec activation time) - Burn out of the area with an MWD (tricky) - Warp out And if bombing would be that easy like you tell, just use the bomber next time. You should be fine. -1 for a whine thread
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 338	Posted - 2015.04.23 06:02:24 - [30] - Quote Now we might be "whining" as you call it but there are some of us who just LIKE flying battleships more then we light flying 2 jumped up cruisers with shield tanks... I used to fly spidertanked geddons in wormholes, best fights i have ever been in and that was specifically because wormholers assumed we were idiots with their shiny t3 boats... Always hilarious when they assume you're Heptastabbed closing geddons and you Up cap chain and start spreading points;) "by the way pointed and your logi is getting heavily neuted and is out of cap.... Wait for it... NOW" Double doomsday tanking was ALSO ridiculous, I lived in Wicked Creek during the great war for the south and it was ridiculous the kind of things you needed to your fitting if the fc called "DD tanked please".

Amarisen Gream The ArK's Hammer ArK Alliance 70	Posted - 2015.04.23 07:59:18 - [31] - Quote Here's an idea. Remove stealth and make them d-scan immune I think this falls into some comments above. It would also effect them in the cloaky camper side as they could not land on grid and sneak up on an active player. xoxo Amarisen Gream
Madd Adda 73	Posted - 2015.04.23 09:14:18 - [32] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Here's an idea. Remove stealth and make them d-scan immune I think this falls into some comments above. It would also effect them in the cloaky camper side as they could not land on grid and sneak up on an active player. they wouldn't be stealth bombers without stealth.... Carebear extraordinaire
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1095	Posted - 2015.04.23 09:22:58 - [33] - Quote If you alter them, what else stops a huge (dominix) fleet from roflstomping EVERYTHING?
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 697	Posted - 2015.04.23 09:54:50 - [34] - Quote Bombs are working as intended, dont blob and you are fine. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1130	Posted - 2015.04.23 13:57:52 - [35] - Quote they willl probably reduce the damage of bombs.. simplest solution, would be nice if they combined it with the point of impact and shockwave damage mechanic though. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 428	Posted - 2015.04.23 14:16:14 - [36] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Killboards suggest that battleships are dying to cruiser size ships with battleship DPS in the form of sentries, and not bombs. Time to make a thread about cruiser size ships with battleship dps in the form of sentires and battleships I tried that the other day, thread got closed down. It's not permitted to discuss Ishtards, haven't you heard? Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1097	Posted - 2015.04.23 14:44:35 - [37] - Quote Harvey James wrote: they willl probably reduce the damage of bombs.. simplest solution, would be nice if they combined it with the point of impact and shockwave damage mechanic though. It would be better to make the bombs have less HP or lower their resists so that a bomber blob wastes their own bombs a little easier effectively capping the number of bombers per run. Whilst people could do multiple runs, it gives the targets slightly more time to escape/much greater chance of the bombers screwing up.
To mare Advanced Technology 405	Posted - 2015.04.23 15:07:11 - [38] - Quote i would tone down the damage of a full bomb wave, and increase the dps they can do with torps. the torp dps was impressive when they was just rebalanced but now after all the frigs and cruisers tiericide ist still good but nothing really worth using especially with the terribad application.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 339	Posted - 2015.04.23 16:09:58 - [39] - Quote The reason we sorta frown on ishtar discussion is that everyone knows they need to be hit in the head with a nerfbat and that all the common solutions have been discussed TO DEATH "make sentries battleship only" "remove sentry bonusses" "do something to make shield ishtars less good" etc ad naseum have all been mentioned and done... And yes, that idea you think is original, its probably either broken, stupid, not original or all 3
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1717	Posted - 2015.04.23 17:11:25 - [40] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: The reason we sorta frown on ishtar discussion is that everyone knows they need to be hit in the head with a nerfbat and that all the common solutions have been discussed TO DEATH "make sentries battleship only" "remove sentry bonusses" "do something to make shield ishtars less good" etc ad naseum have all been mentioned and done... And yes, that idea you think is original, its probably either broken, stupid, not original or all 3 There is also a shitload of people who trained into the ship we cannot talk about and seem to be unwilling to train into something else.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15627	Posted - 2015.04.23 17:19:51 - [41] - Quote Bombers are not much of an issue with armour battleship fleets. The issue isnt with battleships but with all sheild tanking ships. A good bombing run will rip the heart out of any shield doctrine you care to bring. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 203	Posted - 2015.04.23 18:17:25 - [42] - Quote As has been pointed out, there are lots of reasons larger subcaps are unpopular, bombers being one portion, but surely not the only portion. I think everyone can agree that outside of massive bomb waves, bombers aren't particularly powerful. They're slow and fragile, basically dead in the water against anything with small or medium weapons. Even single bombs are not particularly strong. But waves and waves of bombs are perhaps another story? I would caution against any change that is completely binary (say defender missiles are either good enough to render bombs pointless, or bad enough to not be worth equipping). Perhaps a more nuanced solution would be tweaking bomb damage, resists, etc to lower their efficacy in enormous waves? You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 551	Posted - 2015.04.23 20:29:16 - [43] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: As has been pointed out, there are lots of reasons larger subcaps are unpopular, bombers being one portion, but surely not the only portion. I think everyone can agree that outside of massive bomb waves, bombers aren't particularly powerful. They're slow and fragile, basically dead in the water against anything with small or medium weapons. Even single bombs are not particularly strong. But waves and waves of bombs are perhaps another story? I would caution against any change that is completely binary (say defender missiles are either good enough to render bombs pointless, or bad enough to not be worth equipping). Perhaps a more nuanced solution would be tweaking bomb damage, resists, etc to lower their efficacy in enormous waves? Proposal 1: Halve the current damage and HP of bombs, while leaving other mechanics in place. Foreseen consequences: Now, you need to either make multiple runs to hurt a well tanked fleet, or accept that the bombs are there to identify the squishier ships in the fleet at the start of a conventional engagement, and make it a scramble to rep up bomb damage. Does not include any strong counters to bombs, but makes them less relevent as a single strike AOE kill button. Proposal 2: 12s reactivation timer on cloak after launching a bomb and bombs don't go off if the bomber isn't on grid, because telemetry and lore Foreseen consequences: Bomber die much more often, and some bombers end up dead before their bombs go off, taking those bombs out of the way. Does not strong counter bombs other than fast-locking alpha ships (Hi Mr. Loki.....) Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6715	Posted - 2015.04.24 02:12:02 - [44] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Proposal 2: 12s reactivation timer on cloak after launching a bomb and bombs don't go off if the bomber isn't on grid, because telemetry and lore Foreseen consequences: Bomber die much more often, and some bombers end up dead before their bombs go off, taking those bombs out of the way. Does not strong counter bombs other than fast-locking alpha ships (Hi Mr. Loki.....) 12s is in no way "fast-locking" and you know it. Are you just unhappy that your aoe-warp-unenablers are not good enough? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 554	Posted - 2015.04.24 08:18:39 - [45] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: James Baboli wrote: Proposal 2: 12s reactivation timer on cloak after launching a bomb and bombs don't go off if the bomber isn't on grid, because telemetry and lore Foreseen consequences: Bomber die much more often, and some bombers end up dead before their bombs go off, taking those bombs out of the way. Does not strong counter bombs other than fast-locking alpha ships (Hi Mr. Loki.....) 12s is in no way "fast-locking" and you know it. Are you just unhappy that your aoe-warp-unenablers are not good enough? 12s to lock, and kill a target? Especially as this change is intended to limit their effectiveness against battleships, who might get them locked and 2 cycles of short-range guns off at them? Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15636	Posted - 2015.04.24 08:37:39 - [46] - Quote James Baboli wrote: 12s to lock, and kill a target? Especially as this change is intended to limit their effectiveness against battleships, who might get them locked and 2 cycles of short-range guns off at them? Battleship fleets always have anti-support so your idea means no bombing run would ever work. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 555	Posted - 2015.04.24 08:44:34 - [47] - Quote baltec1 wrote: James Baboli wrote: 12s to lock, and kill a target? Especially as this change is intended to limit their effectiveness against battleships, who might get them locked and 2 cycles of short-range guns off at them? Battleship fleets always have anti-support so your idea means no bombing run would ever work. I have seen some without. I'm firmly in the "a bombing run should be HARD, and rely on the other side screwing up to be particularly effective" camp, so forgive me if I give suggestions based on this belief. Also, haven't been in null fleets much in the last year and change, so I've only seen it from the bomber's point of view. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 85	Posted - 2015.04.24 08:56:08 - [48] - Quote James Baboli wrote: baltec1 wrote: James Baboli wrote: 12s to lock, and kill a target? Especially as this change is intended to limit their effectiveness against battleships, who might get them locked and 2 cycles of short-range guns off at them? Battleship fleets always have anti-support so your idea means no bombing run would ever work. I have seen some without. I'm firmly in the "a bombing run should be HARD, and rely on the other side screwing up to be particularly effective" camp, so forgive me if I give suggestions based on this belief. Also, haven't been in null fleets much in the last year and change, so I've only seen it from the bomber's point of view. And i have seen titans without a support fleet, if your dumb enough you can do anything. Do you even tryed to bomb a fleet ? It-¦s not that simple as you said. And is btw one of the few option to counter a bigger blob. And i think we would need more of those options not less. still -1
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 555	Posted - 2015.04.24 09:06:03 - [49] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: And i have seen titans without a support fleet, if your dumb enough you can do anything. Do you even tryed to bomb a fleet ? It-¦s not that simple as you said. And is btw one of the few option to counter a bigger blob. And i think we would need more of those options not less. still -1 I've helped bomb some larger gangs, but never a full fleet. I realize that this is one of the few effective forms of asymetric warfare, and respect it for that, but would prefer that such things be more reliant on inventiveness and novel approaches than stealth bomber runs hitting almost everything in a fleet if you get lucky enough and your enemy obliges. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1098	Posted - 2015.04.24 09:07:32 - [50] - Quote Todays batshit insane idea. Reverse bombs damage equation. Have them hit smaller targets harder. i.e. bomb the logi off field, not the battleships. A blob without logi is a fat series of killmails waiting to happen. I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is terrible but tbh...the thread kinda is too so....when in Rome.... edit: Or make the bombs lower resists//apply WH effects to targets for 30 seconds. Plenty ways to keep them a right PITA without going down the dps route.

James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 556	Posted - 2015.04.24 09:22:09 - [51] - Quote afkalt wrote: Todays batshit insane idea. Reverse bombs damage equation. Have them hit smaller targets harder. i.e. bomb the logi off field, not the battleships. A blob without logi is a fat series of killmails waiting to happen. I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is terrible but tbh...the thread kinda is too so....when in Rome.... edit: Or make the bombs lower resists//apply WH effects to targets for 30 seconds. Plenty ways to keep them a right PITA without going down the dps route. hmmm. Remove sig entirely from the equation, and drop damage per bomb by 25% Now bombers are scary to everyone who isn't already moving fast. keep moving, keep living..... Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 64	Posted - 2015.04.24 23:35:19 - [52] - Quote James Baboli wrote: afkalt wrote: Todays batshit insane idea. Reverse bombs damage equation. Have them hit smaller targets harder. i.e. bomb the logi off field, not the battleships. A blob without logi is a fat series of killmails waiting to happen. I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is terrible but tbh...the thread kinda is too so....when in Rome.... edit: Or make the bombs lower resists//apply WH effects to targets for 30 seconds. Plenty ways to keep them a right PITA without going down the dps route. hmmm. Remove sig entirely from the equation, and drop damage per bomb by 25% Now bombers are scary to everyone who isn't already moving fast. keep moving, keep living..... I actually like this a lot +1
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 616	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:03:58 - [53] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Remove sig entirely from the equation, and drop damage per bomb by 25% slippery slope effect. Sig radius is universal to missiles as a whole. And ccp in many fixes has made all missiles the same. GMP,rigs, etc that exempted unguided now work for them as an example. CCP removes this for bombs....they would have to remove it for all. And I can think of many cases where I'd happily give up 25% of my theoretical damage to lose sig radius dependency. As even a target slammed with web if sig low enough is still not getting premium returns on missile damage. But thats me...applied damage > theoretical. I'd also kindly request my TP and sig radius related skills SP invested back. As would many. "Well TP helps turrets" would be a line of crap to sell to the tourists really.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 226	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:14:24 - [54] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Honestly I think removing stealth would tone them down a bit, a bombing run would be much more difficult however no less effective. They can get the spiffy new dscan immunity that combat recons got.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:21:28 - [55] - Quote So essentially what you're saying is that you're being punished for fielding pure battleship fleets and not using a mix of all ship classes. And the problem is with the bombers being too strong? Why don't you try frigs and destroyers supporting your stuff. At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 64	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:26:03 - [56] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: James Baboli wrote: Remove sig entirely from the equation, and drop damage per bomb by 25% slippery slope effect. Sig radius is universal to missiles as a whole. And ccp in many fixes has made all missiles the same. GMP,rigs, etc that exempted unguided now work for them as an example. CCP removes this for bombs....they would have to remove it for all. And I can think of many cases where I'd happily give up 25% of my theoretical damage to lose sig radius dependency. As even a target slammed with web if sig low enough is still not getting premium returns on missile damage. edit: Vice guns. I don't ponder long and hard as to why if I know I will have web support out the wazoo why I'd favor bringing a blasterthron over a torp BS. But thats me...applied damage > theoretical. I'd also kindly request my TP and sig radius related skills SP invested back. As would many. "Well TP helps turrets" would be a line of crap to sell to the tourists really. There is a core difference between bombs and missiles, one requires a brian.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:31:19 - [57] - Quote Harvey James wrote: James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? point being there are plenty of ships smaller than battleships that can do just as much dps and/or tank just aswell but with the advantages of a smaller hull. I completely agree not only with you but with your sig. Unfortunately, you have to have power creep in ishtars and T3s to appease bored players who want ultimate power with all their isk, because they seem unwillingly to stay equal in power to everyone else unless fielding a cap ship. At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.04.25 01:34:29 - [58] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? point being there are plenty of ships smaller than battleships that can do just as much dps and/or tank just aswell but with the advantages of a smaller hull. okay, now I get it, and agree to a point. No cruiser can match the raw DPS of a similarly fit battleship, but they can apply much more of that DPS to anything other than battleships on up. But, t3s are unmatched in subcaps for EHP when brick fit, and have stellar non-resist mitigation to boot. HACs can't manage the same EHP, but still have that stellar mitigation which is why I quit eve for a long time the first time. They didn't listen to Sirlin. Gameplay with power creep becomes stale and uninteresting, and like I said in an FW thread, people have to come to an unspoken agreement to field T1 hulls, otherwise one side just quits playing and no one gets and fights, therefoer everyone gets bored and the game ends. They should've listend to sirlin. At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 206	Posted - 2015.04.25 02:03:22 - [59] - Quote afkalt wrote: Todays batshit insane idea. Reverse bombs damage equation. Have them hit smaller targets harder. i.e. bomb the logi off field, not the battleships. A blob without logi is a fat series of killmails waiting to happen. I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is terrible but tbh...the thread kinda is too so....when in Rome.... edit: Or make the bombs lower resists//apply WH effects to targets for 30 seconds. Plenty ways to keep them a right PITA without going down the dps route. I can't really imagine the consequences but I toyed with a similar idea for some time. People in small fast ships who are actually playing the game won't be hit by a slow-moving bomb. Battleships will tank the damage easily. It really primarily punishes people for lack of situational awareness instead of all this other stuff. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1135	Posted - 2015.04.25 02:45:02 - [60] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: Harvey James wrote: James Baboli wrote: Harvey James wrote: they need too make battleships the go to class for high dps high tank sub capital fights.. at the moment other classess can achieve this Cruisers - HAC's, pirate cruisers, T3's gila - can do 900dps and with plenty of buffer + lower sig, much more mobility T3's- high resists and big buffer setups + lower sig, much more mobility. BC's -command ships in a dps and tank setup anyway + lower sig, maybe not as much dps with a 2 or 3 link setup.more mobility, higher resists. - Attack bc's - can do out dps some battleships have more mobility + lower sig. - Faction bc's - can compete with most battleships in both areas, more mobility + lower sig Can you rephrase this, as right now it comes out as bafflegab to me? point being there are plenty of ships smaller than battleships that can do just as much dps and/or tank just aswell but with the advantages of a smaller hull. I completely agree not only with you but with your sig. Unfortunately, you have to have power creep in ishtars and T3s to appease bored players who want ultimate power with all their isk, because they seem unwillingly to stay equal in power to everyone else unless fielding a cap ship. Oh my god ... someone actually agrees with me fully.. this never happens Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using

Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 430	Posted - 2015.04.28 11:45:04 - [61] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: James Baboli wrote: Remove sig entirely from the equation, and drop damage per bomb by 25% slippery slope effect. Sig radius is universal to missiles as a whole. And ccp in many fixes has made all missiles the same. GMP,rigs, etc that exempted unguided now work for them as an example. CCP removes this for bombs....they would have to remove it for all. And I can think of many cases where I'd happily give up 25% of my theoretical damage to lose sig radius dependency. As even a target slammed with web if sig low enough is still not getting premium returns on missile damage. edit: Vice guns. I don't ponder long and hard as to why if I know I will have web support out the wazoo why I'd favor bringing a blasterthron over a torp BS. But thats me...applied damage > theoretical. I'd also kindly request my TP and sig radius related skills SP invested back. As would many. "Well TP helps turrets" would be a line of crap to sell to the tourists really. There is a core difference between bombs and missiles, one requires a brian. Who is Brian? And what's he got to do with anything? Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 290	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:23:08 - [62] - Quote I like the idea of halving the bomb EHP. Making it require a more sustained assault as opposed to just one press of an 'I win' button makes a lot more sense to me. It would certainly make the fight more of a challenge, instead of just an instant loss. And also give the defending fleet a chance, which would certainly promote the use of battleships again. Or we can just stick to t3 and ishtars.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1734	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:25:41 - [63] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bombers are not much of an issue with armour battleship fleets. The issue isnt with battleships but with all sheild tanking ships. A good bombing run will rip the heart out of any shield doctrine you care to bring. And how can we "unfuck" that? What penalty do we give to shield if not sigbloom? Or do we make bombs ignore sig radius and just outright murder anything small?
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 619	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:01:17 - [64] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bombers are not much of an issue with armour battleship fleets. The issue isnt with battleships but with all sheild tanking ships. A good bombing run will rip the heart out of any shield doctrine you care to bring. And how can we "unfuck" that? What penalty do we give to shield if not sigbloom? Or do we make bombs ignore sig radius and just outright murder anything small? Well....shield weakness shows up quick in some doctrines ghetto shield fit to get more damage mods on if spec'd armour by slot layout and stats. In for a penny in for a pound here really. Sometimes that pound is great damage output to own. That pound can also be the weaker tank that kills you faster. For the true shield tankers....don't cluster up. Now the minmatar get the shaft here a bit since can be range limited (vice rokh) but when I flew rokhs in fleets if the call was made warp to player x, I warped + 30 at least. Range could be random fudge factored based on what was most common in fleet. As that is what fc could be calling warp to ranges on. But generally I found range not an issue with rokh's bonuses if the fudge factor off. main thing was to not be in the cluster. From bomber flying I know how much clusters are loved. Bag you a few BS's in the run....you don't emo rage over the few that got away. I actually liked seeing this smarter game play. It restored some faith in humanity to see some knew something so simple can work out well for them. Now case of gate jumps...you just take your chances here tbh. You trust scout gave good info to help the fc make a good decision.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 335	Posted - 2015.04.30 14:22:15 - [65] - Quote Show me the data. Bombs and bombers are not causing widespread mayhem. In fact i hardly see them around at all going over the kill-boards. Shield tanked or otherwise. The biggest problem with shield tank is mid slots. They are just too dam useful to give up if you can get the tank in the lows. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Nalia White Tencus 117	Posted - 2015.04.30 16:47:53 - [66] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Tabyll Altol wrote: And i have seen titans without a support fleet, if your dumb enough you can do anything. Do you even tryed to bomb a fleet ? It-¦s not that simple as you said. And is btw one of the few option to counter a bigger blob. And i think we would need more of those options not less. still -1 I've helped bomb some larger gangs, but never a full fleet. I realize that this is one of the few effective forms of asymetric warfare, and respect it for that, but would prefer that such things be more reliant on inventiveness and novel approaches than stealth bomber runs hitting almost everything in a fleet if you get lucky enough and your enemy obliges. so you say you have to be lucky and your enemy has to **** up for bombs to really wtfpwn. sounds fine to me.
SGT FUNYOUN Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet 96	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:14:39 - [67] - Quote A) There is no problem with bombs or bombers. Just whiny cry baby's whimpering because they lost their BS fleet. BUT... Sure, let's fix them anyway... Proximity decloaking, NO. Not only would that screw with every cloak in existence but would make them nearly useless. Buffing Battleships... all for that actually.... except for BS Speed. I say NO to a heavy speed and agility buff on BS's. WHY? Because they are BIG. You want fast and quick turning, you have to fly a smaller ship. You want power and tank, fly a bigger ship... simple as that. Think about it like this... I fly exclusively Gallente, I have flown others and find I like Gallente the best as part of my personal play style... so my BS's can do nearly the speeds and turns that my BC's can do... why? Because Gallente ships were speed buffed in the updates last year and are no longer big slow lumbering behemoths. Compared to other classes of Gallente ships yes they are slow and lumbering.... but that is the point. If you want fast and quick turning, you have to fly a ship that has a smaller mass. If you want epic power and lots if tank you have to fly a ship with a larger mass... and the trade off is faster = less power & more power = slower... there is no way around it as it is a simple law of basic physics. Inertia is a with witch a capital B when it comes to trying to slow down and turn a ship as big as a BS... there is simply no way around them being big slow lumbering giants... so no... NO SPEED OR AGILITY BUFF THAT MAKES BS'S OUTCLASS BC's... a SMALL buff to their speed and agility across the board would be nice... but not anything significant. Just enough to give the a higher edge against bombs. Quite frankly the fact that your BS fleet got blasted to pieces by an 8 man team of SB's tells me you don't know how to properly fit your ships and you don't know how to keep on your toes either. Yes the bomb is an AoE weapon... LEAVE THE ONLY AoE WEAPON LEFT IN THE GAME ALONE!!! You are the type of person who griped and whined... and are the reason TITANS ARE NOW AS USELESS AS A SECOND SET OF BUTT CHEEKS!!! I can fully sympathize with the fact that Titans were being over used as Blob-spankers and were obliterating entire blobs in one shot... I can see why this was frustrating people and I agree that making them more suited to attacking other caps and POS's was a good idea of sorts... but now they are just about useful for nothing more than mobile jump bridges. So no, we don't want you to mess AT ALL with Stealth Bombers.... don't fudge around with cloaks either,... leave those 2 alone because any little tweak is going to absolutely destroy the entire ship type... if you are worried about BS's getting smoked by SB's and want a "fix" for a non-existent problem... buff the TANK and DPS of BS's... THAT way... you are not only NOT messing with SB'd and ticking everyone off by screwing up a perfect working ship type, but you are ALSO making it harder for SB's to destroy them in one shot, AND making BS's more useful as a fighting ship, AND making them more survivable against EVERYTHING and not just an SB blob. Leave SB's alone, and buff the Tank and DPS of BS's... problem solved.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 587	Posted - 2015.04.30 22:35:52 - [68] - Quote SGT FUNYOUN wrote: A) There is no problem with bombs or bombers. Just whiny cry baby's whimpering because they lost their BS fleet. BUT... Sure, let's fix them anyway... Proximity decloaking, NO. Not only would that screw with every cloak in existence but would make them nearly useless. Buffing Battleships... all for that actually.... except for BS Speed. I say NO to a heavy speed and agility buff on BS's. WHY? Because they are BIG. You want fast and quick turning, you have to fly a smaller ship. You want power and tank, fly a bigger ship... simple as that. Think about it like this... I fly exclusively Gallente, I have flown others and find I like Gallente the best as part of my personal play style... so my BS's can do nearly the speeds and turns that my BC's can do... why? Because Gallente ships were speed buffed in the updates last year and are no longer big slow lumbering behemoths. Compared to other classes of Gallente ships yes they are slow and lumbering.... but that is the point. If you want fast and quick turning, you have to fly a ship that has a smaller mass. If you want epic power and lots if tank you have to fly a ship with a larger mass... and the trade off is faster = less power & more power = slower... there is no way around it as it is a simple law of basic physics. Inertia is a with witch a capital B when it comes to trying to slow down and turn a ship as big as a BS... there is simply no way around them being big slow lumbering giants... so no... NO SPEED OR AGILITY BUFF THAT MAKES BS'S OUTCLASS BC's... a SMALL buff to their speed and agility across the board would be nice... but not anything significant. Just enough to give the a higher edge against bombs. So, align times that just kiss the inside of 10s with all skills 5 is a good place? Glad we agree. SGT FUNYOUN wrote: Quite frankly the fact that your BS fleet got blasted to pieces by an 8 man team of SB's tells me you don't know how to properly fit your ships and you don't know how to keep on your toes either. Yes the bomb is an AoE weapon... LEAVE THE ONLY AoE WEAPON LEFT IN THE GAME ALONE!!! Smartbombs. Tell RnK that there is only one AoE weapon left. I dare you. SGT FUNYOUN wrote: So no, we don't want you to mess AT ALL with Stealth Bombers.... don't fudge around with cloaks either,... leave those 2 alone because any little tweak is going to absolutely destroy the entire ship type... if you are worried about BS's getting smoked by SB's and want a "fix" for a non-existent problem... buff the TANK and DPS of BS's... THAT way... you are not only NOT messing with SB'd and ticking everyone off by screwing up a perfect working ship type, but you are ALSO making it harder for SB's to destroy them in one shot, AND making BS's more useful as a fighting ship, AND making them more survivable against EVERYTHING and not just an SB blob. Leave SB's alone, and buff the Tank and DPS of BS's... problem solved. The exemplars of the weapon systems that are in line with the progression, blasters and beams, don't need any more DPS. Everything else probably needs a slight buff to make them fit the curve established by small and medium guns (more than slight in the case of projectiles, but still not huge). Tank, 15-20% increase is good, and more than does it. But what really kills the BS is the avionics being absolute crap on most ships. SGT FUNYOUN wrote: *** EDIT: BOMBS and cutting their EHP in half: I can live with less DPS coming out of a bomb exploding... NO problem with that at all. Cutting it by 30-40% though may be a little better. But yes, as a Stealth Bomber pilot myself, I actually agree that the EHP coming out of a bomb right now is kind of ZOMGWTFBBQDPSBLEEPBLEEPDEAD!!! pwnge...so yes, make the BOMBS slightly less powerful if you must... but DO NOT change anything else about them... don't make them so that Defender missiles can kill them, as they are really slow and a pack of Defender missiles will be able to kill every bomb in the area in no time flat... DO NOT make them fly slower... and DO NOT make them have a SMALLER damage radius... there is no need for all that. Simply buff BS's DPS and TANK and decrease the DPS OUTPUT of the bombs themselves. Simple elegant solution. THERE IS NOTHING wrong with Stealth Bombers themselves... only that BOMBS can be nerfed a bit on output power and still be perfectly effective, and then the BS's TANK can be buffed a bit and make the bombs slightly less effective. These changes do not take massive reprogramming of stats, it does not take gigantic amounts of rebalancing afterwards... and it serves both purposes easily. Some people want more survivable BS's some want less DPS out of bombs... don't mess with cloaks, don't mess with SB's... if anything... make SB's DE-cloak FASTER... so that they are recognizable on grid faster and can be caught, locked and shot more easily. If you REALLY need to mess with SB's... then that is the ONLY thing I think would be plausible. Decrease the time it takes for them to show up on grid after the pilot hits the de-cloak button so that the rest of the grid has that extra second or 2 to lock them up. Easiest, simplest, and least destructive adjustment possible. The concept is sound. The implementation needs serious work to bring it to a reasonable place, which is what this thread seems to be about. People were spitballing ideas so they could be shot down if bad, or tweaked until good if a good concept. As for decreasing time to show up, it is allegedly the tick they decloak. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.