| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Meditril
   |
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:10:00 -
[1]
The most simple way to make Stealth Bombers useful again is just to change the missle damage bonus from 5% to something useful like 25% per Cov Ops level. This doesn't need much programming efforts and you make Stealth Bombers useful again for suprising attacks after the Revelations Shield and Armor Boost.
Best regards,
Meditril
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 14:44:00 -
[2]
Actually, what would be the single most important thing would be "cloaked ship pilots do not show up in local".
_____
-sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Meditril
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 15:30:00 -
[3]
You are right, together with a significant missile bonus boost a not-showing-up-in-local would allow sneaky attacks. While the need to uncloak for warp and to open fire gives a nice balance and a good chance for the victim to simply run away in time or to engage.
|
Lockheed Lightning
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 18:12:00 -
[4]
Actually, the 25% increase to damage plus a simple 'no penalty to targeting after decloaking' will make the stealth bomber useful again.
Right now its decloak... give the other guy enough time to see you and start targetting you BEFORE you can target them... shoot missiles just outside NOS range... watch the target jump out before the 2nd volley hits them.
yay for stealth bombers. The only thing they bomb is their own wallets.
|
Lygos
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 19:04:00 -
[5]
How about a delay for showing up in overview?
I would like this for all ships, but to have some variance in timers among classes and specialized ships would be interesting.
---
Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 19:09:00 -
[6]
Just giving bombers a truly ridiculous amount of solo destructive power might not be the answer. Sudden, brutal attacks seem better suited for crippling blows, rather than outright annihilation.
I think the bomber should be rethought. It's a really terrific ship, and it deserves some serious attention. Right now it's a mix-and-match of cloaking and cruise missiles, but with some love, it could be a really interesting wrinkle in the new, more intimate combat system.
Giving it a bonus to subsystem targeting, if and when that's introduced, would be the obvious solution, allowing its alpha strike to maim rather than kill.
In the meantime, how about giving it some kind of status ailment-inducing power? Give it a specialized weapon type that deals some damage (more to larger targets, like a torpedo or something) put also has some kind of effect, like a 80% chance of a 20-second target jam, or a minute-long sensor dampening, or a ten-second AoE stasis web.
I don't think there's a way to balance an alpha strike that'll pwn ships without an opportunity for reply, since it'll be co-opted into gank tactics overnight. Some kind of support role to tip the scales in a proper fight (it is a CovOps ship, after all) would be more manageable.
--------------
Civis Ascendant Sum |
Caldar Rhysk
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:44:00 -
[7]
When I think Stealth Bomber i think hugh destructive power... Look at the B2 bomber in r/l it can carry nukes etc etc...
I'd like to see the Stealth bomber be *****ble with Citadel Launchers or at least Siege Launchers with either a good refire bonus or heafty damage bonus.
Having the pilot not show up in local is a very good idea along with the removal/reduction in targeting recalibration timers.
|
Sarin Kahsra
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:09:00 -
[8]
I would prefer if the 2 types of covert op ships served
opposing roles.
Covert op: Can scan ships/cargo while cloaked. Can take targetted ship's modules offline 1 by 1 within a certain
range(must be close, targetted ship's sensor boosters increase chance of detection).
Stealth Bomber: Searches for and destroys Covert op ships. Can detect cloaked ships. Can De-cloak cloaked ships
(allowing other ships to target them).
Only Stealth Bombers should see cloaked ships in Local.
|
blake fallout
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:16:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Lockheed Lightning
Actually, the 25% increase to damage plus a simple 'no penalty to targeting after decloaking' will make the stealth bomber useful again.
Right now its decloak... give the other guy enough time to see you and start targetting you BEFORE you can target them... shoot missiles just outside NOS range... watch the target jump out before the 2nd volley hits them.
yay for stealth bombers. The only thing they bomb is their own wallets.
how about - you can target while clocked -BUT -it take x amount of seconds (becouse of cloaking feild something or other) to fire youe weapons.
|
Garonis
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:48:00 -
[10]
Actually, allowing the ship to utilize the covops cloaking device would be a step in the right direction, along with perhaps the ability to use passive targeters while cloaked (active targeting uses active radar etc to aquire targets)
a nice dammage bonus to overcome the hp increase is a good idea, but better would be granting more pg/cpu, to allow pilots to fit the ship out and include protective electronics as well.
just wishful thinking here, as i think this class is a bit dead until Tuxford decides to give it a little love.
|
Alkirin
Gallente
Die Hard Mining
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:58:00 -
[11]
I think that giving it a long targeting time while cloaked would introduce a stalking measure that would fit well with the concept.
However, the harsh penalties that normally apply to cloak shouldn't apply to covert ops ships that are specifically meant to use such devices.
[Cogito Ergo Sum Atheios] - Alkirin of Scientia Obscura |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 05:48:00 -
[12]
Give them an option upon creation to be either stealth or divebombers, they'd still show the same but the target wouldn't know till they unleashed the 'ol cruise missiles kestrel style.
That would mean ships with no missiles slots would have to be able to fit oversized other weaponry.
Problem being to make the original function of them appealing after that boost... I'm tired so that's all the brainfart you get.
Nebula Rasa Holdings |
Lygos
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 06:37:00 -
[13]
I agree with Reggie on the subtargetting business.
Failing that, it would be nice if the Bomber had some kind of special capacity for engine crippling.
Basically, each missile dissuades warpout for 5-10 seconds, and ideally each halves the agility of the ship for about 10 seconds.
---
Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Anderson Wes
Ars Caelestis
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 07:32:00 -
[14]
I personally prefer fire while cloaked.
|
Meditril
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 09:45:00 -
[15]
I know that there are many good proposals for making Stealth Bomber more useful and especially more fun. I prefer myself also something which is more like submarine behaviour with great hunting and hiding possibilities (see Dangerous Waters for active and passive sonar for example). But all these nice proposals also need many programming efforts for implementing so it will take much time till CCP get's them running (in case they will really spend this efforts, I am still not sure about this). Therefore my initial proposal was meant as a simple and first solution which is easy to implement and helps us Stealth Bomber friends to "survive" the time till we get a nice Stealth Bomber.
Best regards,
Meditril
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 10:30:00 -
[16]
Fire (or at least lock) while cloaked, it actually makes a lot of sense! 
Zarch AlDain
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 13:13:00 -
[17]
How stealth bombersin act in RL?
They fly safe to target, drop their payload and dissapprear.
To be stealth, they have limitations - limited charges, hard to fly, small size, which leads to limited fuel/range, bomb payload and so on.
Because of these limitations, stealth bombers are no so powerfull as the normal bomebers. Compare the Nighthawk with the B52.
To be detected the enemy should use very expensive and high tech equipment.
To make something similiar in game, it could look like this:
 Stealth bomber should be able to lock while clocked (possibly using the Passive targeter).
It should be decloaked to fire.
New torped laucher should be introduced, which can be fitted only on the stealth bombers. It should have ammo size of 1, so you fire and get the hell out of there. Only one of those can be fitted
The torpedo for this launcher should fly realy slow, but have high dmg. 5,6 ot those should be able to kill a BS.
Introduce new module (and optional a skill) for detectind cloacked ships. Omni directional with short range (up to 20-50 km), or directional with bigger range, to be used as part of the directional scanning. When active and you use you directional scanner you can detect cloaked ships at range up to 100-300 km (tweaking needed). Also it may be limited by the scan degrees you use in the scanner, up 30 degrees. So you don't receive insta cloak detector.
Make those Defender missiles worth something. Each defender missile should be able to kill one incoming missile, maybe with lower chance for the lighter missile types.
This way the stealt bombers would act like the RL ones.
You lock target and fire, the if you have the guts, wait 10 sec for the second torp to load and fire again. During this time, you can use other waepons, if any are fitted.
And for the local, all stealth ships should not be hidden, the should mimic the radar signature of the tech I ship with the same hull. So when scanned, the stealt bombers and covops ships should look like tech I frigates.
P.S. An addition to the new probe scanning system: any target who is using it's directional scanner should be more easier to find with probes. Emmiting any kind of signals normaly gives up your location.
|
Lygos
Amarr
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 21:53:00 -
[18]
It seems pretty obvious that we want two classes of Bombers.
One stealth, and the other strategic. Strategic Bombers are going to need to verge more towards the near-suicidal.
Ideal stats are web-resistance, and added effects to their payloads. (i.e. agility damping, capacitor/warp/sensor/etc disruption).
---
T2 Risk |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 00:39:00 -
[19]
Meditril, no, making them better frigate gankers won't help their actual usage at all. Their limiting factors are their fragility, their cap and their dependence on the now-nerfed alpha strikes. You're better off in a T1 frigate, atm. Further, ganking is BAD and boring gameplay.
Akita T, making them the uktimate scouts WOULD be useful, but not bombers. So...no.
Sarin Kahsra, making these ships which are boring and utterly useless in any other situation a requirement for any operation is NOT a good way to actually make them useful, you make them necessary which is something else entirely and it is a hallmark of WoW-style class-based gameplay which does not belong in Eve.
Anderson Wes, yea, and I'd like a missile that did 100,000 damage too.
Fixing bombers...
Ditch the stealth gimmick. Make them considerably faster, tougher and more manouverable (between AF's and Ceptors). Give them 3 (3 races) /4 (caldari) heavy rocket launchers with a fitting, damage and RoF bonus.
Lygos, a true "stealth bomber" would be uber and basically take over as the sole fitting for gank squads, and a "strategic bomber" would remain as useless as the current one. And again, gank gameplay - destroying assets with ZERO chance to respond - is unfun, unamusing and plain BROKEN.
//Maya |
Karon Wodens
LFC
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 03:06:00 -
[20]
A way to make Stealth ships more viable again?
My dream for these puppies is hacking, being able to implant spikes into the target's system with various effects.
By NO means should this be an "I win button" but rather a type of erratic surprise for the enemy. The effects could range from your ship showing the wrong information about your current shield status (blinds you), forces guns to use more energy, randomly reload or in the case of a very hardcore hackjob, take a single module offline.
Caldari Prime: Think of that moment, remember what they did...
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
XxTiggerxX Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 11:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Karon Wodens
A way to make Stealth ships more viable again?
My dream for these puppies is hacking, being able to implant spikes into the target's system with various effects.
By NO means should this be an "I win button" but rather a type of erratic surprise for the enemy. The effects could range from your ship showing the wrong information about your current shield status (blinds you), forces guns to use more energy, randomly reload or in the case of a very hardcore hackjob, take a single module offline.
Nice idea.
But i realy like to see working Stealth bomber.
For the strategic momber, because of the game mechanics, this is going to look like Torp missile platform. We have this already - Ravens 
|
Prescience
Gallente
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 12:12:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Prescience on 06/12/2006 12:12:28
I agree about revamping the stealth bomber. Im coming to the opinion that cloaking is the wrong idea for it though. Perhaps instead of being entirely invisible, it should be incredibly difficult to lock in the first place, a miniscule targetting radius, less than anything seen before, so that it takes many seconds to be locked by even a frigate. Play around with the resistances as need be.
The problem with this is that as soon as anyone detects it on scanner, the game will be up. I cant think of a way around that one though, sorry.
"And for the local, all stealth ships should not be hidden, the should mimic the radar signature of the tech I ship with the same hull. So when scanned, the stealt bombers and covops ships should look like tech I frigates."
- Agreed with Makiavelli (sp)
_____________________________________
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
XxTiggerxX Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 12:21:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Prescience
Edited by: Prescience on 06/12/2006 12:12:28
I agree about revamping the stealth bomber. Im coming to the opinion that cloaking is the wrong idea for it though. Perhaps instead of being entirely invisible, it should be incredibly difficult to lock in the first place, a miniscule targetting radius, less than anything seen before, so that it takes many seconds to be locked by even a frigate. Play around with the resistances as need be.
The problem with this is that as soon as anyone detects it on scanner, the game will be up. I cant think of a way around that one though, sorry.
"And for the local, all stealth ships should not be hidden, the should mimic the radar signature of the tech I ship with the same hull. So when scanned, the stealt bombers and covops ships should look like tech I frigates."
- Agreed with Makiavelli (sp)
Nice idea about not cloaking the Stealth bomber, Prescience.
I thing that we are moving to one well tought design for the Stealth bomber.
Come on guys, give the little bird your love. Psot your suggestions here. Let's make CCP hear us. If we have something nice, I am sure they will listen.
|
Yokai Milanis
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 12:25:00 -
[24]
Admitedly I don't know much about a stealth bomber, but here's how I would suggest handling it after reading this thread. Make the bomber able to target while cloaked.
Then it can drop the cloak and utilize scrams, EW, Nos, or whatever other tackle setup you care to use.
While this wouldn't make it a pwn mobile, it would make it a very valuable strategic vehicle in fleet battles.
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
XxTiggerxX Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 12:49:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Yokai Milanis
Admitedly I don't know much about a stealth bomber, but here's how I would suggest handling it after reading this thread. Make the bomber able to target while cloaked.
Then it can drop the cloak and utilize scrams, EW, Nos, or whatever other tackle setup you care to use.
While this wouldn't make it a pwn mobile, it would make it a very valuable strategic vehicle in fleet battles.
This is job for the Coverts Op ships.
Stealth bomber should ... well BOMB
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 16:03:00 -
[26]
By far the easiest way to make them usefull again would be to change them towards torpedo launchers instead of cruise.
The (hidden) signature bonus should stay as it is and would make the torps very powerful vs pretty much everything bigger than a frig. (especially with rage torps)
Maybe change the dmg-bonus on them into and additionl target signature bonus to make the torps hit harder vs cruiser sized targets.
Not sure if that would be effectiv to keep the dmg vs BS about the same but increase the dmg vs cruiser.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that. 
|
TheBelgarion
Caldari
Kinetic Vector
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 16:13:00 -
[27]
manti catching dust in the hangar atm ....
but with all your nice idea ... a group of like 5++ Stealth bomber should still now wtfpwnall-Iwin fleet :-)
even if i would like it ;-) .. but there is always 2 sides ...
--------------------------------------------
upgrade to Combat Log - additional Information |
Varis
Jericho Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 16:45:00 -
[28]
have to agree with Sir Drake - just make the bombers use torpedoes instead - makes them more effective vesus battleships etc, and less useful against frigates (which is good). I'd even go so far as to give them a damage bonus (like 5% per level) on torp damage to help simulate shooting at weak spots etc.
Make the bombers something that battelships fear, and need other frigates to defend against.
the stealth part is sorta useless.
|
Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
The Corporation Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 18:23:00 -
[29]
Torpedoes, definitely, but the explosion radius bonus must go. A Rage torpedo would have an explosion radius of 100, which would translate to a world of pain for everything except that which is fast enough to outrun the torpedo (aware frigate) or out-last it (battleships).
Since the ship section is filled to the brim with ships dedicated to killing frigates (in fact, I don't think there's a single frigate meant to kill anything larger than itself!) what the game needs is a bit of a look upwards. Something small that's dangerous to Bigger stuff, apart from tackling.
-
EVE is sick. |
Prescience
Gallente
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 18:31:00 -
[30]
I disagree about using torps. Torps IMHO are more of a battleship killer. They are 'unguided' to a large extent. Cruise still do damage to battleships but they are also effective against any class, as the bomber is designed to be. I feel that apart from the detection issue, the bomber is fine as it is.
If you start throwing new ideas like torpedoes into the equation, it starts sounding like the pure miners wanting a mega mining frigate, or the PvPers wanting an Uber battleship to one hit anything.
The point of using cruise is that its fast(ish), the ammo is *smaller* and more able to fit in the ship and its multirole, its harder to outrun a missile than a torp.
As I and Mak have said before, detection is the main issue in this topic.
Dont flame me too hard 
_____________________________________
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 19:09:00 -
[31]
I think all of us agree that the stealth bombers are pretty useless atm.
The main point of disagreement is what their role should be.
From my point of view i would like them to be battleship killers.
I would love them to have a real niche and not being multirole.
For that the bomber would need a very decent alpha strike that should to be delivered from close to medium range and be a real threat to BS in the first place, second to cruisers and not at all to frigs.
This would be best/easiest achieved by letting them fit torps instead of cruise as torps can be outrun by frigs with AB/MWD pretty easily and even if they get hit they wont get much damage due to their small signature, same goes for cruisers to a lesser extend.
Detection IS a problem for stealth bombers but what to do about it?
Solutions might be:
- give them the cov ops cloak, at least the approch would be easier that way
(i wouldnt use the bomber with that as ship/equipment would be worth more than a tier 1 BS and that with a paperthin armor/shiel)
- let them passiv lock (with the module) while cloaked and let missiles keep their lock when ship re-cloaks
- scrap the cloak for the ship and give it a passiv bonus to signature that would make it extremly hard to lock (even with sensor-boosters)
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
XxTiggerxX Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 19:12:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Sir Drake
I think all of us agree that the stealth bombers are pretty useless atm.
The main point of disagreement is what their role should be.
From my point of view i would like them to be battleship killers.
I would love them to have a real niche and not being multirole.
For that the bomber would need a very decent alpha strike that should to be delivered from close to medium range and be a real threat to BS in the first place, second to cruisers and not at all to frigs.
This would be best/easiest achieved by letting them fit torps instead of cruise as torps can be outrun by frigs with AB/MWD pretty easily and even if they get hit they wont get much damage due to their small signature, same goes for cruisers to a lesser extend.
Detection IS a problem for stealth bombers but what to do about it?
Solutions might be:
- give them the cov ops cloak, at least the approch would be easier that way
(i wouldnt use the bomber with that as ship/equipment would be worth more than a tier 1 BS and that with a paperthin armor/shiel)
- let them passiv lock (with the module) while cloaked and let missiles keep their lock when ship re-cloaks
- scrap the cloak for the ship and give it a passiv bonus to signature that would make it extremly hard to lock (even with sensor-boosters)
thumbs up
/signed
|
Prescience
Gallente
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 19:24:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Prescience on 06/12/2006 19:24:16
Ok, Ill go with this, you've swayed me, however I would still like the option of being threatening to frigs. Most of my kills with my Nemesis has been against smaller targets.
"In addition, stealth bombers' extremely advanced missile navigation subroutines are able to triangulate a cruise missile's trajectory in advance, resulting in a decreased factor of signature radius and making the missile more effective against smaller targets"
This is taken from its description, from which I dont like to deviate too much. If CCP are going to change them they wont make MASSIVE alterations, probably just tweak them. Although, far be it for me to second guess CCP!!
I would focus more on the detection. If they used covert ops cloaks, I would just stop using them, I own *EDIT* two COC(T2) and I recently checked the price in THE FORGE. I was SHOCKED.
Im thinking that they wont want to alter the craft too much so that it makes it unusable by players using it already, so we have a framework of skills to surround it. I just looked and its suprisingly easy to fly one of these things. Only 2 lvl 5 skills for a T2 frig.
Well, Im stumped, it would really be for CCP to decide, using the suggestions we put here perhaps.
_____________________________________
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 03:33:00 -
[34]
drop the missiles thing entirely.
make stealth bombers stealth (smart)bombers !
lower fitting and activation requirements so that larges can be fit on frigates and get a good 4-5 fires off before cap runs dry.
just an idea, possibly not even a very good one. but anything to bring back the fun of the shipclass. at its conception it was one of ccp's best ideas but now its gone the way of the cyno-recon ship
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:03:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Prescience
Edited by: Prescience on 06/12/2006 19:24:16
Ok, Ill go with this, you've swayed me, however I would still like the option of being threatening to frigs. Most of my kills with my Nemesis has been against smaller targets.
"In addition, stealth bombers' extremely advanced missile navigation subroutines are able to triangulate a cruise missile's trajectory in advance, resulting in a decreased factor of signature radius and making the missile more effective against smaller targets"
This is taken from its description, from which I dont like to deviate too much. If CCP are going to change them they wont make MASSIVE alterations, probably just tweak them. Although, far be it for me to second guess CCP!!
I would focus more on the detection. If they used covert ops cloaks, I would just stop using them, I own *EDIT* two COC(T2) and I recently checked the price in THE FORGE. I was SHOCKED.
Im thinking that they wont want to alter the craft too much so that it makes it unusable by players using it already, so we have a framework of skills to surround it. I just looked and its suprisingly easy to fly one of these things. Only 2 lvl 5 skills for a T2 frig.
Well, Im stumped, it would really be for CCP to decide, using the suggestions we put here perhaps.
I few points on your post:
- I dont think changing their bonus from cruise launchers to siege launchers would be to hard, i could bet it would be just a minimal change to the DB but thats just a guess.
- Skillwise i dont think people using the stealth bombers (shouldnt be that many anyway) would be very upset to train up their torp skills instead as they will clearly see the advantage.
- Changing the descripton (except for the bonus part) wouldnt even be necessary as with the signature bonus (still hidden). The torps launched from a stealth bomber would be way more effectiv vs frigs than launched from a raven so the description still holds true after the proposed change.
- Prices for the covert ops cloak II are insane atm, i certainly wouldnt fly a combat frig fitted with one (i still love my helios) as its to risky for my taste.
- I used the Nemesis and the Manticore to some extend getting a few solo kills with both (mostly frigs) and in gang also a few cruiser kills.
Im sure i dont need to tell you anything about tactics for its usage but from my pov all the kills we could pull of were from the really good damage these babys can deliver befor the target can react.
As soon as one of the targets gets to shoot back or even worse pulls out his drones you better speed up for a hasty warpout. (sentry drones are a real horror)
I really do hope the devs do something about the stealth bombers to make them usefull again as it is now they are pretty suicidal to fly. With the HP increase the targets either have time to warp out or even worse close in and rip the bomber.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Letheeth Kayl
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:00:00 -
[36]
Brian shutting down, too many conflicting posts (some of them intelligent even!).
So we dont' like high alpha strike do we? Ganking is bad. Passive targeting is good idea, allows to lock while cloacked. Doesn't allow for firing while cloacked.
Idea?
Throw an extra mid slot or two on the frigate and give it nice passive target bonus, and allow to lock while cloacked. Then, change the "can't use that module because you're cloacked" function into "you can't use that module while your ship uncloacks" This should prevent firing for a couple of seconds, giving folks enough time to go "oh shnikey's!" and attempt to lock the frigates.
A possiblity to counter this faster locking of the cloacked ships would be to increase the recalibration of the cloaking device, leaving them sitting in the open longer.
Requires alot more programing than the "high alpha" adjustment (possible even a change to the type of cloacks used at gates vs. cov ops cloacks), but it doesn't radically change the role of the stealthbomber, just makes it sneakier, and meaner.
Also, please remember that there are 2 types of stealth frigates: bombers and covert ops. Let's keep the bombers bombing (not torping), and the covert ops being sneaky. But I too would like to see a covert ops frigate that can dismantle a ship electronically while cloacked. . . imagine the cap ships we could steal . . . ooops, there goes your warp drive system for the next 30 seconds :), and your targeting ability has just been cut in half . . . and here comes the rest of the ambush to take the ship. Pity my frigate got blown up 2 seconds after you spotted me, but hell, we got the dred, and it's escort.
Lastly, and this is also off thread
there need to be more t2 missle frigs, instead of just stealthbomber. I like the idea of a torp slinger (though that shouldn't be very stealthy), and a rocket god, but aren't the caldari interceptors rocket gods anyways?
|
Varis
Jericho Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:08:00 -
[37]
yeah - there are two schools here.
Personally, if i want to kill frigs/ceptors etc - i bring a dessie or assault frig. Cheaper.
But as was said elsewhere - there is really nothing that is small that can hurt the big guys - Nothing like a guy with a RPG vs tank.
I strongly think there is a need for a "bomber" type craft - a frigate that is meant to attack the battleships etc - but is very weak against anti-frig tactics. Thats why i wanted the torp type weapon.
Honestly i think the "stealth" part is just a gimmick. Without the ability to warp cloaked its badly gimped, and with the ability to see you in local its also largly gimped as well.
<shrug>
|
MaKaVeLi DaDoN
Caldari
XxTiggerxX Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 10:04:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Varis
yeah - there are two schools here.
Personally, if i want to kill frigs/ceptors etc - i bring a dessie or assault frig. Cheaper.
But as was said elsewhere - there is really nothing that is small that can hurt the big guys - Nothing like a guy with a RPG vs tank.
I strongly think there is a need for a "bomber" type craft - a frigate that is meant to attack the battleships etc - but is very weak against anti-frig tactics. Thats why i wanted the torp type weapon.
Honestly i think the "stealth" part is just a gimmick. Without the ability to warp cloaked its badly gimped, and with the ability to see you in local its also largly gimped as well.
<shrug>
A stealth bomber is a STEALTH BOMBER. It should "bomb" big thingsm like BS ot BS.
If you want to fight small targets stealthy, use STEALTH FIGHTER (the CovOp ship).
|
Prescience
Gallente
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 10:17:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Prescience on 08/12/2006 10:17:22
Aaah, stealth fighter. Aha.. now we're getting somewhere. A *EDIT*(third) fourth class of covert ops. (we have a recon frigate, a bomber for bigger stuff and a cruiser for.. well anything..) A stealth fighter would be a logical addition to the covops community, based around another frigate it could be a real asset. (I may have gone a little far...)
_____________________________________
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
TheBelgarion
Caldari
Kinetic Vector
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 10:18:00 -
[40]
- giving it CovOps Cloak ( SEED MORE OF EM)
- targeting /fireing whiel cloaked
looks like a great alpha strike weapon ...
but than again ... having a 4-6 BS gate camping gang jumped but 10-20++ Stealth Bomber and going insta POP - sound like a nice story ... but only for the winning team :-)
--------------------------------------------
upgrade to Combat Log - additional Information |
Prescience
Gallente
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 10:22:00 -
[41]
If you're going to use the cov ops cloak, the price had better come down BIG TIME. The cost in ISK would fund my combat efforts for the next month alone. I bought one when they were 30mil ISK. I killed someone and got a second. Now they're totally insane.
_____________________________________
WHO said EVE had to be FAIR??
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 12:31:00 -
[42]
Originally by: TheBelgarion
- giving it CovOps Cloak ( SEED MORE OF EM)
- targeting /fireing whiel cloaked
looks like a great alpha strike weapon ...
but than again ... having a 4-6 BS gate camping gang jumped but 10-20++ Stealth Bomber and going insta POP - sound like a nice story ... but only for the winning team :-)
If you can get 20+ ppl together to gank a 6 BS gate camp it doesnt really matter what ships you are using. 
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
ScythedMiner
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:04:00 -
[43]
A random thought popped into my head while reading the thread.
Why are we only thinking about stealth bombers Vs other ships??
Using the RL analogy (bad I know but you gotta start somewhere) aren't stealth bombers more effective against less mobile things - like Capital ships (Titans, Motherships, Carriers, Dreads) and maybe POS's?
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:28:00 -
[44]
Originally by: ScythedMiner
A random thought popped into my head while reading the thread.
Why are we only thinking about stealth bombers Vs other ships??
Using the RL analogy (bad I know but you gotta start somewhere) aren't stealth bombers more effective against less mobile things - like Capital ships (Titans, Motherships, Carriers, Dreads) and maybe POS's?
Basicly yes but what weapon could you fit them to achiev that?
Citadel Torps!
As much as i would love to have those on a frig im pretty sure that will never happen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
SpawnSupreme
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:33:00 -
[45]
i think going from a +5% to +10% would be better and allow stealth bommers to make any action cloaked but doing so will auto uncloak you so a stealth bommer can target you without being noticed with the right targeting mods then when you launch your first volly your ship automaticly starts to uncloak after the fireing starts. this will give a huge element of suprize. with a fleat of these ships can be devistating ready on command fire unleash a hell storm of missiles and unlocking and recloaking to watch an un suspecting ship go pop. but then again i hate gate campers and that tactic might run at every 0.0 entrance gate. but there is food for thought i just think damage is not the way to go but something more stealth.
|
ScythedMiner
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:33:00 -
[46]
That would involve changing the ship stats too much - so create a module that gives a dmg/agility bonus that can only be fitted to the ship type.
Just an idea.
|
Lygos
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 15:12:00 -
[47]
Bomber:
Tier3 Tech2 Frigate Body
Native Frig Bonus: Utilizes Cruise Missiles + dmg
-Sub-bonus: Normal frigate weapons bonus
Bonus 2: Reduction in Signature Radius
-Sub-bonus: 1 type of EW effect added to missiles(or bonus for spec'd ammo).
Gets the normal weapons complement of a T1 frig, PLUS 2(3) cruise missile slots on every platform.
Sacrifices hp and capacitor to encourage burst damage role.
Sacrifices explosion radius bonus so that it is not an anti-interceptor platform.
Sacrifices cloak.
Stealth Frigate:
Not sure, but..
-Cloaking and strong resistance to anti-cloaking technologies.
-Provides AWACs support for fleets/other bombers.
-It's armaments are highly precise, and thus it gets bonuses to all types of disabling effects. (Can switch ammo while cloaked too. Anti-inty precision cruises bonus should just come with the ammo-usable only by Bombers.)
-A significant duration bonus to missile EW effect is needed. A thrust or agility destabilizing missile could last a full minute.
-Strong EW resistance.
-Warps cloaked, but with Long recloak times, including a penalty with gatecloak timer. (Reminder: Kill local. Gates suck.)
-Could have special EW that actually effects ships such as Motherships and Even Titans. For example, warp disruption. 20seconds per missile, chance-based, would be good.
-Physically and offensively weaker than the Bombers in dps terms.
---
T2 Risk |
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 20:59:00 -
[48]
Bump!
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Letheeth Kayl
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 11:13:00 -
[49]
forgive me, but
Bump.
|
Ranira
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:16:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Sir Drake
Detection IS a problem for stealth bombers but what to do about it?
Solutions might be:
- give them the cov ops cloak, at least the approch would be easier that way
(i wouldnt use the bomber with that as ship/equipment would be worth more than a tier 1 BS and that with a paperthin armor/shiel)
- let them passiv lock (with the module) while cloaked and let missiles keep their lock when ship re-cloaks
- scrap the cloak for the ship and give it a passiv bonus to signature that would make it extremly hard to lock (even with sensor-boosters)
A stealth bomber should strike fear into the enemy - not utterly destroy ships in a single alpha. Stealth bombers like the F117 are tactical bombers. The B2 is a strategic bomber. The EVE bombers are made from frigate hulls - so i see them as tactical bombers.
The first idea is nice but not viable due to the prices of the cov ops cloak and not really an improvement because you still have to uncloak, fire, wait for impact (high chance fo being locked) warp away/recloak.
2nd idea is THE solution for our problems with the current description of stealth bombers. You need a passive targetting module for this to work so blocking a med slot as a drawback. Let the missiles hit after your recloak and you can try to get a new strafe on them. The ships should really be strafing bombers - and thus a tactial bomber. They would install fear into the enemy by not destroying it but by being very hard to destroy and thus being a constant pain in the a*s.
3rd idea is a nice one too but would change the stealth bomber to a dive bomber. CCP has to decide which way they want the bombers. It could be something like 5% signature reduction per covert skill.
With decent skills you get nice damage out of Cruise Missiles. Bombers are never alone when deployed so you should at least get into a kill with 2 or 3 bombers. I am strongly against fitting torps to our current stealth bombers. I think we just need a new stealth ship for this sort of action.
If you want a better frigate skill then remove the current frigate racial boni with 2% missile velocity per frigate skill. The cov ops skill bonus should stay the same.
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 23:02:00 -
[51]
A bump for a good idea to solve a serious problem!
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Solomunio Kzenig
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 15:13:00 -
[52]
Good thread about this subject......though i would agree that prehaps it would be better to have two/three different classes to handle all the proposed capabilities/functions described here:
1. Covert Ops ships....similar to 'as is' in EVE now, these are covert recon ships and their bonuses should reflect this.
2. Stealth Bombers. Designed to deliver heavy missile payloads to both capital ships and installations. Passive targeting must be posible while cloaked. SB will have a very small sig radius and be agile, and they should not show up in Local. To keep some game balance, SB's should have 'glass jaws', with poor shields/armor: i.e shields less than 180, armor below 250.
3. Bombers. These are enlarged Heavy Fighters with heavier weapons and are optimised for anti-ship work, and they might be armed with some sort of missiles aswell as heavy guns (race specific damage and resists).
One Empire, One People, One Emperor, Forever under Heaven. Amarr Aeternus.
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 22:31:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Ithildin
Torpedoes, definitely, but the explosion radius bonus must go. A Rage torpedo would have an explosion radius of 100, which would translate to a world of pain for everything except that which is fast enough to outrun the torpedo (aware frigate) or out-last it (battleships).
Since the ship section is filled to the brim with ships dedicated to killing frigates (in fact, I don't think there's a single frigate meant to kill anything larger than itself!) what the game needs is a bit of a look upwards. Something small that's dangerous to Bigger stuff, apart from tackling.
I don't agree that gank DPS is the right way to do it, though. Heavy assualt missiles (which are nicely close ranged) and the right bonuses would let a pack of bombers rip through BS, *quite* quickly...
It's possible to SERIOUSLY buff their stats once youy drop the cloak gimmick..
//Maya |
AGDruss
|
Posted - 2006.12.17 12:19:00 -
[54]
Edited by: AGDruss on 17/12/2006 12:19:58
Let me start bu saying that there are some very nice idear above.
Now if i was going to build a Steath bomber in this world for real. these are some of it qualitys i would wish for.
Bomber Version
1) weapon that take up all weapon slots But has the eqivelent effect in game the same as a nuck in the real world ( yes that mean mass damage ( this would probley be a one shot weapon and expensive)
2) Remove the cloack from the ship and remove pilot from local. plus make it hard to pinpoint the ship with probes ship or pilot skill that counter probe use again him.
3) have ship harder to target that ship of the same size ( drop the sig radius would not work as that is also used to work out damage agains it) so i propos a modual that make it harder to lock the ship probley and ammour type ( have 4 vesrions for the 4 difrent races dection methods)
what would u beable to do with this well jump into system and drop your one shot weapon. and get out again with out getting hit but its only a one shot weapon so main use would be in alanice.
Steath hunter Ship
the other type of ship would be more of and EW ship ( steath hunter)
1) This ship should be fast hard to hit ( increase speed )
2) Carry a convension pay load
3) have a cloak
4) EW bounus ( beable to fire probes)
5) also carry same amour as steath bommer
this ship could be used for scouting in 0.0 and scouting a head in enemy areas also hunting down steath boambers etc
PS sorry about spelling i am dyslexic
|
Neky Lyk
|
Posted - 2006.12.17 14:01:00 -
[55]
ok, here's a dime thought.
stealth bomber:
reffering to RL they should be able to hit big, slow, armored/shielded things with a really small chance to be detected while doing it.
add a new kind of an expensive one-shot weapon that does REALLY massive damage but can't hit anything smaller than a BC or even a BS. it could be mounted on the stealth bomber and have a really small FIXED range with a delay on firing after decloaking(as a result of firing). the cloak would be used for getting close enough to the unaware target(no specialized detection sensors). decloaking upon the fired shot it shouldn't get away so easily:
if (weapon_fired==true) then cap = 0;
so it needs a diversion of some sort to deliver it's deadly payload AND to escape. comments?
i am a carebear. i bearly care. |
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.17 23:28:00 -
[56]
To go into the ideas of those last two post:
1. about the Bomber Version (from AGDruss):
- extrem heavy hitting one-shot weapon, yes please!!! maybe single shot citadel launcher but i cant see that coming
- remove the cloak, yes as long as it gets some counter lock ability
- remove pilot from local, i cant see that happen in any case
2. about the Stealth Hunter (from AGDruss):
I think we already got a ship like that, the Recon class!
Ok its not a frig but still plays your described role pretty well.
3. about the Stealth Bomber (from Neky Lyk)
- heavy hitting weapon that needs to be delivered up close and that can only hit BIG targets, yeah i could live with that
- cloak as it is (i think), not that usefull at all atm and that wont change
Could all of you interrested in this thread answere a few questions pls?
1) Which stealth method would you prefer?
a. cov ops cloak b. extremly small sig c. keep it as it is d. something different
2) What dmg delivery would you prefer?
a. massiv alpha but low DPS [eg. torp or citadel] b. good DPS but low alpha [eg. HAM]
3) What range of dmg delivery?
a. medium b. short c. extremly short
4. What ships should it have as primary targets?
a. all of them b. cruise and bigger c. BC and bigger d. capitals and POS
Lets think of ways to achive a "working" stealth bomber without too many changes.
PPL should be able to use it without the need of heavy retraining nor should it be necessary for CCP to do lots of reprogramming.
Keep it simple and we might actually get what we want soon(tm).
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Nytemaster
Mega-Deth
|
Posted - 2006.12.17 23:29:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Nytemaster on 17/12/2006 23:33:38
Originally by: Prescience
Edited by: Prescience on 06/12/2006 12:12:28
I agree about revamping the stealth bomber. Im coming to the opinion that cloaking is the wrong idea for it though. Perhaps instead of being entirely invisible, it should be incredibly difficult to lock in the first place, a miniscule targetting radius, less than anything seen before, so that it takes many seconds to be locked by even a frigate. Play around with the resistances as need be.
The problem with this is that as soon as anyone detects it on scanner, the game will be up. I cant think of a way around that one though, sorry.
"And for the local, all stealth ships should not be hidden, the should mimic the radar signature of the tech I ship with the same hull. So when scanned, the stealt bombers and covops ships should look like tech I frigates."
- Agreed with Makiavelli (sp)
Dude, you found the answer. Change the cloak bonus and introduce a new module (specifically for stealth bombers) that prevents it from being detected AS EASILY on scanner along with the sig radius reduction and you got yourself a new stealth bomber that accomplishes what most of us are seeking in a new stealth ship. Kudos. Signed.
EDIT: Also the ability to NOT BE SEEN until you have fully dropped out of warp would be most excellent and provide first strike capability and surprise.
|
Shi Mun
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2006.12.17 23:56:00 -
[58]
This is what i think the role of stealth bombers should be.
1) Stealth Bombers role should be to heavily damage large ships, i.e battleships.
2) To acquire this role, Stealth Bombers should carry TORPEDOS
3) In order for them to do a large amount of damage, they should have a TORPEDO DAMAGE BONUS
4) In order to conpensate for the damage bonus, they should have a RATE OF FIRE PENALTY
5) To make up for the slow movement of torpedos, they should have a TORPEDO VELOCITY BONUS
As for the cloaking, i havent got any experience nor do i know much about it so i really cant say much about it of worth. As it seems the 'system recalibration' penalty should be scrapped or severely reduced on the stealth bomber, the idea being that it can lock, shoot then cloak again vs big ships but would not be able to do it so fast that it couldnt be caught by a wary frigate or destroyer.
A stealth bomber with these sorts of attributes would be very effective vs larger ships but very ineffective at damaging smaller ships due to missile mechanics and would therefore fit its role quite nicely.
This is how i thought a stealth bomber should be.
---------------------------
HAHA! your jammers suck now! Oh wait whats happening to my scorpion... |
stay puff
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 14:15:00 -
[59]
i vote for the ability to start firing while cloaked or at least target while cloaked and then decloaking in the proces.
for example i see my target i lock on and just as i fire my weapon i decloak
|
VIctoria Ballentyne
Minmatar
Pale Riders Incorporated
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 14:50:00 -
[60]
Some good ideas up so far, and here are my 2 bits.
A third Stealth Bomber model adapted specifically for Torpedo's and/or Smart Bombs. Now I know once you get within a certain range the cloak closes down, but properly fitted out such a ship would prove quite devestating if set up properly. Give it the ability to fit large smart bombs or Torpedo launchers and you have a heavy hitting platform.
A Rig which requires cloaking lvl IV or V which allows firing while teh stealth bomber is cloaked.
VIc
"Forbid a man to think for himself or to act for himself and you may add the joy of piracy and the zest of smuggling to his life" |
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 20:20:00 -
[61]
I think the bomber class should be able to mount citadells. they are the biggest punch out there and come closest of all eve weapons (short of ddd) to the tactical nukes of nowadays (well even bane torps description says it is a tactical nuke but they arent realy).
the primary bonus should be a dread-like bonus to citadell damage, the second one a bonus to lower their sig ratio. they should have a hidden bonus so POS doesnt target them as long as other big ships (Bs and caps) are around.
otherwise I could imagine a "tactical nuke guidance recalibrator" which works like a siege module and modifies a normal torpedoes' values (damage, flight time, flight speed, expl velocity,...) to that of a citadell torpedo. this would save expensive cap weapons and training time.
at sime time the module would blast the bombers sig ratio by 500% like a mwd (maybe decreasable by the modules' skill). basically you would then have an anti battleship bomber which can switch to anti pos/capital mode.
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 23:21:00 -
[62]
The problem i see with citadel torps is their launcher description (size of a small frigate) and the torps small volume (0.6m3).
And a bomber just shouldnt be able to fire several salvos of them, giving them efectivly the same firepower as the caldari dread.
So to make them realisticly available to the cov ops bombers it would be necessary to bring another launcher into EVE. Some kind of missile rack with only a 1-3 citadel torps per rack and a rather long RoF would be appropriate. Ammo would still be a bit too small for my taste (too many reloads even with frig sized cargo) but that cant be helped without hurting the caldari capitals.
Also another factor is the time to get the skills for these babys!
At least torps lvl5 will take some time for most ppl that are able to use the cov ops bombers atm.
Anyone has a real idea what kind of damage 3 citadels torps do to a BS?
(i dont have the skills for the citdel torps)
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 23:21:00 -
[63]
The problem i see with citadel torps is their launcher description (size of a small frigate) and the torps small volume (0.6m3).
And a bomber just shouldnt be able to fire several salvos of them, giving them efectivly the same firepower as the caldari dread.
So to make them realisticly available to the cov ops bombers it would be necessary to bring another launcher into EVE. Some kind of missile rack with only a 1-3 citadel torps per rack and a rather long RoF would be appropriate. Ammo would still be a bit too small for my taste (too many reloads even with frig sized cargo) but that cant be helped without hurting the caldari capitals.
Also another factor is the time to get the skills for these babys!
At least torps lvl5 will take some time for most ppl that are able to use the cov ops bombers atm.
Anyone has a real idea what kind of damage 3 citadels torps do to a BS?
(i dont have the skills for the citdel torps)
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Garonis
Caldari
Templars of Space
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 03:38:00 -
[64]
Well, here is an idea, make covert ops cloaks Built into the ship. no need to fit the module
its already part of the hull.
I really like the idea of cloaked approach, with a massive dammage weapon, one that can seriously effect a BS's shields/armor. perhaps 2-3 of these craft could possibly take out a bs. give it a massive reload time to make it not practical to solo said BS. that would be a great ship to carry surgical strikes with ^^
This is my sig ^^ |
Atrial Quartz
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 04:08:00 -
[65]
The only complaint i have about my current stealth bomber is...
"Why in the name of god does someone being locked on to me prevent me from recloaking?!"
Outside of the holy name of game ballence this does not make sence. the entire reason i want to re cloak is because I am now exposed in a paper thin frigate with a time delay attack. But someone can lock, fire & warp scramble me in seconds and i'm dead. Now i agree there should be a significant cool down time that it takes before i can recloak but right now it's just absurd.
The damage of the cruise missles used to be formidable but now is pretty pathetic. Why CCP designed a class of ship that was made spesificaly for non sustained fights then went and changed all ships hp just to prolong a fight the stealth bomber shouldent have been in does not make any sence unless something is changed. For now you need something like a crew of 4 or more SB's each with ewar fittings to attack a single lone cruiser. the price point here just dosent match.
|
Neky Lyk
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 11:35:00 -
[66]
i see a lot of good ideas here, ppl actually think  , j/k
CCP should really fix this. along with the t1 destroyers which are also useless the way they are now. except for salvaging 
we sould make a petition or something(a vote would be nice, but hey... it's not phpbb, hopefully the web-probie/newbie will do something about it )
P.S. bump, bump, bump... 
=EvE= =EvE= =EvE= =EvE= =EvE= =EvE= =EvE=
i am a carebear. i barely care. |
Caleb Paine
Infinite Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 12:28:00 -
[67]
Give them a siege mode; Damage multiplayer at the cost of not being able to move (you can still cloak ofcourse)and perhaps including an explosion velocity bonus. Make it a 2 minute cycle, so they can be found out while having those bonuses on.
---------------------------------
INFINITE TECHNOLOGIES
We provide solutions for your problems
Contact us on our forums or ingame |
Karon Wodens
LFC
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 13:50:00 -
[68]
Look, how about just handling Stealth bombers the star trek way? That way alway made sense to me.
Cloaked vessels there are capable of sneak attacks with deadly efficiency, but cloaking requires that you go to low power mode, almost like a submarine avoiding detection.
This means that a cloaking cov ops ship would forego many of it's subsystems. Shielding, reducing targeting proficiency, etc. And of course seeing as activation weapons requires a surge of power from the ship itself, that event would in fact uncloak the vessel.
Regardless, I do agree with the fact that It shouldn't show up in local... in fact... I don't understand why anyone shows up in local at all! Why on earth would I announce my presence if I'm trying to travel hidden.
Caldari Prime: Think of that moment, remember what they did...
|
CrestoftheStars
Deviance Inc
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 14:58:00 -
[69]
i have never used a stealth bomber... but to me 125% exstra dmg instead of the 25%..
seems a bit overpowering... maybe if you said 50% or 75% i would look at it with more reasonable eyes...
but with this... will lets say it like this, i would be going for 110dmg or so each rocket, with a rof on 2,10..
3 rocket launchers... giving a dps on 157 with a t2 cloaked frigate...
this would be more then insain...
maybe you should think abit about the bonusses before setting them up;) hehe
Originally by: Lockheed Lightning
Actually, the 25% increase to damage plus a simple 'no penalty to targeting after decloaking' will make the stealth bomber useful again.
Right now its decloak... give the other guy enough time to see you and start targetting you BEFORE you can target them... shoot missiles just outside NOS range... watch the target jump out before the 2nd volley hits them.
yay for stealth bombers. The only thing they bomb is their own wallets.
|
Karon Wodens
LFC
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 16:43:00 -
[70]
I dont see the logic behind such immense damage bonuses... I mean, how on earth do they squeeze the potential out of such a small missile where a missile intensive battleship can not do so?
Caldari Prime: Think of that moment, remember what they did...
|
FactorzGT
Quantum Industries
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 19:13:00 -
[71]
a couple ideas from my experience w. my Manticore
1) bonus to missile velocity i.e. it reaches the target faster
2) penalty to flight time to yield same effective range as normal stats
3)better warp stat - it should be able to cross long systems in one warp
4) bomber gangs not practical because no one can see each other ... all gang members should be able to see other cloaked gang members in space ... only in gang
additionally, while everyone is yakking about realism don't forget one fact ... the ship is still a physical object in space ... the cloak fools other high tech forms of detetion but brutually low tech systems exist to flush out such ships
because of the poor interface of manual maneuvering in EVE ... the 2K range rule should not apply ... only an actual bump should decloak
however a high slot module and a rig slot module should be introduced that can decloak ships ... and who better but the super low tech minmitar to develop it
|
Ranira
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.01.07 10:38:00 -
[72]
/bump for the good ideas in here
-----
The most simple way to make Stealth Bombers useful again... |
Garonis
Caldari
Templars of Space
CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.01.08 14:39:00 -
[73]
/bump, Please CCP Breath new life into this shipclass!
This is my sig ^^ |
VJ Maverick
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 04:36:00 -
[74]
I'm not sure if this analogy has been mentioned but I see the Stealth Bomber as the equivalent of the Rogue class in fantasy RPG's - in other words the primary damage dealer. Sneak attacks, poisons/distracts, HUGE damage but no tank. The EVE equivalent should be a ship that can do the following things:
1. Strike FIRST from a hidden state.
2. Deliver a TON of front-loaded damage at the expense of sustained DPS.
3. Be able to temporarily jam/disable an opponent effectively but for a very short period of time.
4. Be able to escape quickly after performing its attack.
The trade-off to these abilities would be:
1. No tanking or sustained combat ability whatsoever. In other words, if your e-war fails or if your attack takes longer than anticipated and you get drawn into an extended battle, you WILL lose.
Comments?
|
Lane A'lusin
Gallente
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.14 07:03:00 -
[75]
Of all the suggested fixes I only like 2:
1)Getting rid of the target lock delay from decloaking (thus targeting and firing right out of cloak).
2) a missile velocity increase.
A simple missile velocity increase seems like the easiest fix, because it would increase the threat that the bomber COULD do more damage, and it wouldn't change what the bomber already does now (which I assume is how they envisioned the stealth bomber to work). The "suprise" factor of the de-cloak and immediately fire path also seems to have the spirit of a "stealth bomber", but would take one of 2 fixes: either stealth bombers would have to be able to use cov ops cloaks, or there would have to be some new mid slot module that lets the bomber target while cloaked. Though using the cov ops cloak would, in a way, let you de-cloak and unload faster than you could previously (and I would sure like to use a cov ops on My bomber), it would also make you wicked fast when cloaked which would make the bomber a little too good. And its not that hard to imagine that a skilled small group could seriously harass a superior force by unloading a round/jamming then cloaking and moving to a new spot (at 660m/s) and rinse and repeat. So unfortunately, I don't think we'll see the cov ops on bombers any time soon. The second option, of the mid slot module that lets you target while cloaked, would likely work better with no foreseeable added drawbacks other than the loss of a mid slot.
Just my long winded 2 cents |
Talthrus
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.01.14 07:22:00 -
[76]
What I've always wanted to see Stealth Bombers have is more unique racial weapons. For example, while Caldari should keep the traditional missile concept, wouldn't it be great to see Amarrian bombers firing some type of energy bomb? You could even introduce a new weapon subtype for the main groups that could be used on bombers so the races that are not so missile-inclined can continue training in their respective areas. Could be interesting but may be hard to implement in the end.
----------------------
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2007.01.14 08:30:00 -
[77]
Or to offer a totally different approche:
Keep the ship like it is but give them the unique ability to target sub-system (with a ship scanner module).
1-2 salvos for a hi-slot module (wouldnt you love to disable the targets guns that way?)
3-4 salvos for a mid slot module (more hits needed because of the modules deeper integration in the ship)
6-8 salvos for a low-slot module
some % of the damage goes to the shield/armor but the rest leaks through
It would be a rather sweet way to make them usefull for killing/disableing ships with strong tanks.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that.
|
Ironpole Ironpole
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 16:33:00 -
[78]
I think that there should be a balace between the Stealth bombers. What i mean is that right now there is only one SB that really gives any dmg and that is the Manticore and that is just wrong there should be 3 launchers on each type of SB BUT to diversify them i believe that each race should have its own bonus to dmg, ie. Gallente +5% dmg with thermal, Minmatar with explosive... This in my opinion would allow each race to fly its SB with some kind of use.
Ironpole
|
VJ Maverick
Caldari
Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 04:30:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Sir Drake
Or to offer a totally different approche:
Keep the ship like it is but give them the unique ability to target sub-system (with a ship scanner module).
1-2 salvos for a hi-slot module (wouldnt you love to disable the targets guns that way?)
3-4 salvos for a mid slot module (more hits needed because of the modules deeper integration in the ship)
6-8 salvos for a low-slot module
some % of the damage goes to the shield/armor but the rest leaks through
It would be a rather sweet way to make them usefull for killing/disableing ships with strong tanks.
Why would I spend 6-8 salvos to disable a low slot module when the same 6-8 salvoes are good enough to completely destroy most ships in their entirety, assuming Mnanticore and maxed out skills.
The one change I WOULD LOVE to see in the SB is to allow me to warp cloaked. That would complete the entire "stealth" aspect. The "bomber" aspect is fine.
|
Ashen Dreams
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 09:22:00 -
[80]
Could all of you interrested in this thread answere a few questions pls?
1) Cover ops cloaking, as you fire it would uncloak
2) Preferably torpedos bassiacly MASSIVE ALHPA but low low DPS... like some people said a citadal that fires like 3 with a salvo of4 launchers? I have no idea the damage does but ....
3) about 50 to 70 km....
4. Battleships and small POS....
|
Ashen Dreams
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 09:26:00 -
[81]
*edit* alright two Dread like launchers for ohter races, races prospective for weapons..... but ya...... and warping while cloaked would be great!!!!!!!!
|
MSC Darklord
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 22:08:00 -
[82]
Maybe make them warp faster? 3au is too slow.
|
Lunarra
Paradox v2.0
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 03:10:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Lunarra on 19/02/2007 03:07:21
Edited by: Lunarra on 19/02/2007 03:06:57
OK, i am a regular stealth bomber pilot and i don't know where you guys got this idea that stealth bomber are totally and utterly useless in there present state! I had many great kills on them and absolutly love them!
It is just not an easy ship to use and be efficient with. But once you have a well oiled way to use it they can be a real extrem pain in the buttex for those that are falling under their fire.
Saying that they could indeed be much much more improved and so far the only idea that seems interresting and sensible is the ability to target while cloaked.
On the other hand this idea of 10000000000+ damage is just ridiculous. a frig popping a BS???!!!! LMAO all gang would have one of them, warp to close range of the target pop here goes your BS. Oh! a capital ship, bring 3 frigs it will go down like a cruiser! What are you thinking about i ask you?
Stealth bombers are stalkers that choose their prey. They are a lion trying to feed, does the lion always get fed?
|
Nachshon
Caldari
Gradient
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 18:56:00 -
[84]
I had an idea a while back. Basically, I said that stealth bombers should be able to warp and target while cloaked. Then give them an ROF penalty, and further weaken them so they can't survive any form of sustained combat.
A stealth bomber will attack in the following way:
Warp in (while cloaked)
Target (while cloaked)
Decloak-fire-warp away
Meanwhile, the non-Caldari stealth bombers need extra missile slots.
__________________________________________
What I say should not be taken as the position of Gradient or NMTZ. |
scthes wench
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 21:26:00 -
[85]
Edited by: scthes wench on 19/02/2007 21:23:58
Edited by: scthes wench on 19/02/2007 21:23:44
A possible and fairly simple change would be a cruise missile built specifically for the stealth itself giving it the ability to fire then decloak and lock the target but you must be at said distance from target or missile will not have time to acquire target ie 100 km for min launch distance and must obtain lock by 60 km or missile just goes astray or can actively seek its own target much like some modern weapons can.
Then a speed bonus to the missile once target is acquired much in the way a cruise works by gaining altitude and diving in on its target.
Along with some that are just area of effect weapons which could be a possible base for the gang effect weapons they are looking at utilizing to get rid of the blob battles that are nothing more than lagfests.
Area of effect could possibly be targeting disruption warp disruption (dont care for this idea since dictors already exist) the other problem being it yet produces another ship and weapons system meant for lowsec only but hey if your gonna pvp do it where it matters and quit ganking noobs in the belts
|
Seriya
Caldari
Phoenix Knights
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 01:39:00 -
[86]
I seem to recall reading something about a 'really big bomb' for stealth bombers in a semi-recent dev blog?
I think something new in on the cards within the year...
|
Chief Judge
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 02:52:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Chief Judge on 20/02/2007 02:51:05
I took 20 mins and read all this..
Then i took another 200 mins thinking this over..
( i have lots of experience of balancing games and roleplay.. 12 long years behind me..)
And i came to a conclusion which will everybody love..
Giving that needed oomph for SB whilez not giving them too much power..
AND revelation hp boost is ideal for balancing SB AND something that all non Caldari SB runners yearned for..
Read everything before judging please..
1.add one more cruise launcher to all SB.. and perk up the fitting bonus for cruise launchers
-that way u get dmg bonus u need,bringing SB up-to-date with Revelations,AND close the gap beetween Manticore and other SBs,while maintaining Caldari missle supremacy..
-making all SBs deadly again..
-ATM Caldari have 50% more DPS then rest.. which in time forces SB ppl to fly caldari SB
-after adding one more launcher it would have 33% more DPS which is still nice advantage whilez ppl could fly their racial SB
2.eliminating sensor recalibration just for SB.. or cutting it -50% at least,(if eliminating is overpowering)
-which is more balanced than passive targeting since u still have to lock frig longer than a battlecruiser..
(i though about allowing SB to target whilez cloaked VIA passive targeter..
THAT WILL ALLOW PLAYERS TO VIRTUAL INSTALOCK ALL THE SHIPS NO MATTER THE SIZE.. so frigs WILL NOT have a good time with these :)
( i like the 1nd option more since it is more balanced)
3.i would introduce -25%penalty to ROF on SB launchers..
-it is funny and overpowering to see SB ships giving the same DPS as BS.. This way SB would have greater alpha strike which are they supposed to have..
since cutting sensor recalibration time allows ppl to certainly be able to see the fruits of their 1st wolley,2nd wolley should be riskier to launch, in turn forcing attack- recloak-redeploy-attack rutine to be used more,or working in groups..
and Voila.. fix for bombers without much programming issues..
Conclusion..
-Better survivability for bombers(no sensor recalibration=more time to recloak and redeploy/run)
-greater Alpha strike.. which SB are supposed to do
-not so much greater DPS cause ROF penalty(no solo gank pwn mobile)
which forces SB to operate in teams..
(and which is going to satisfy all those nagging how can a SB deal more DPS than BS.. :)
CCP.. will ya consider me as game balancer? :))
I have lots of ideas..
Croatia forever!
Mirko 'CROCOP' Filipovic new UFC champ!! :)
|
zwe1
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 07:15:00 -
[88]
BUMP
Please make some kind of change CCP ;) some good suggestions here
|
Meditril
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 08:03:00 -
[89]
Dear CCP developer team,
to come back to the title of this thread and after reading all the threads I propose the following simple changes in stealth bombers:
1. Double the scan resolution of stealth bombers. Stealth bombers have to use cloaks which have heavy negative effects on scan resolution. The rise of initial scan resolution of this ships would help them in their role of figate/interceptor killers since this allow them to target much faster after decloaking.
2. Raise the racial damage bonus per cov op level from 5% to 10% to give them a slightly higher alpha strike.
That's all, this should be really easy to implement and it should boost the stealth bombers in a way making them attractive without making them too overpowered.
Best regards,
Meditril
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |