Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 13:50:00 -
[1]
Noah (CCP) informed the CSM that it was the intention for bombs to be used to break up on-grid blobs. CCP is aware that the current system is not entirely balanced out, but that it was better to introduce bombs in a pre-nerfed state and boost them later rather than implementing them in an overpowered fashion.
Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) suggested that one of the main issues with bombs is the cost of these weapons, and that the cost should be reduced, while the required cargo space should be unaffected so that people cannot carry huge amounts of these weapons. Another suggestion was to increase damage done to large targets.
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) pointed out that stealth bomber vulnerability was an issue as well, and that it might be necessary to improve the range of bombs.
Noah (CCP) agreed to hand this issue to the CCP balancing team.
Wrangler Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email
"It's not worth doing something unless you are doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing." |
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 14:50:00 -
[2]
I don't have a good suggestion other than reducing the price tag.
Add in the fact that you can't use them in highsec or lowsec, and they're almost completely useless. They're a novelty weapon for a novelty ship.
Maybe if stealth bombers could actually bomb steathily (warp cloaked) and the ammo didn't cost more the ship and have a 10+ day training time on a skill that doesn't provide any bonus to the bomb, people would use them.
They were introduced pre-nerfed so hard I've yet to see one ever used. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:14:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Noah (CCP) agreed to hand this issue to the CCP balancing team.
\o/
|
Threv Echandari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:00:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Threv Echandari on 10/07/2008 17:01:48 I was tempted to create a new subject on this but decided that it should be under Bomb boosts however it is a radical proposal. (I'm in the Bombs needing a boost plan more damage , less cost) It is apparent the 0.0 blob warfare for better or worse (Worse really) is a part of FW, which was supposed to encourage smaller gang warfare objectives. Since the Bombs were originally designed as a tool to help break-up on grid Blobs CCP should consider:
Allowing the use of Bombs in Lowsec.... with a proviso or two.
1. Only Faction Warfare Militias should be allowed to do this. From an RP perspective since Concord has sanctioned combat between Militias, the use of Bombs would seem a logical extension of this. (it could be argued about Interdiction Spheres but I think those have made combat worse not better) Though I would still disallow them in High sec, the Greifing-play probability is just too high.
2. Sec status hits for hitting Non Combatants and fellow Militia Pilots should still apply. (It would probably be too difficult to implentment an exception for Friendly fire) Unless you made Bombers specifically immune from Bomb effects. (and I'm just throwing that out there) Or Removing Sec hits for members of the Same gang/Fleet when using AOE weapons. (a bigger issue) This theoretically could apply for Smartbombs as well since FW rules severely limit their use as well.
Of course if the Bombs aren't Boosted then the above is moot but its just a thought. Now that I don't play in 0.0 too much any more it saddens me that that one more thing that gimps the use of one of my favorite ships. (I also think that Bombers should be able to warp Cloaked but that is another Can o' Worms)
---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:03:00 -
[5]
I love the idea of Bombs, have seen them used (completely ineffectivly by the way) and have trained and built a pile for myself to try.
But I gotta admit it all seem like a total waste of time and isk. Its a great concept which could actually reduce the tendency to blob. Unfortunately it is a totally impractical implementation at the moment.
The present concept is similar to the WWII dive bombers, with accuracy and speed totally dependant on the Stealth Bomber's trajectory. Perhaps making them more similar to a rocket-propelled bomb where you could fire it off in a general direction and have it home in on a ship or shiptype with a self-propelled velocity increase would make them more useful.
Warping when cloaked would infringetoo much on the Covert Ops ships. But perhaps a signature reduction to the stealth bomber or another means to make it harder to lock would work.
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:37:00 -
[6]
Reduce their pricetag, and dont force the SB's to remain uncloaked before the bomb hits. -
|
Jinshu
German Kings Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:23:00 -
[7]
Indeed the Damage should be boosted as well, as it states the bombs only take out frigatte size vessels for sure - in the times of HP buffer tanks most cruisers could withstand a hit - we do not even talk about t2 resists. Also the stealthbomber itself always has to see, that he survives the attack - increase useabillity. The Game cannot be won, only played. |
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari Reduce their pricetag, and dont force the SB's to remain uncloaked before the bomb hits.
QFT, the Survivability of the stealth bomber is all about stealth, its about decloaking, firing a volley, then cloaking before you're locked. A Stealth-bomber, can't survive an impending battleship fleet, even for those crucial 15 seconds unless its difficult to lock.
|
ATOM ANT
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:31:00 -
[9]
As there are several different kinds of bombs, I find the blob removal gimik hard to envision under the present method of delivery. A bomb should behave like a bomb. IE: it should make a mess of anything in its imediate vacinity. I dont think cost is an issue. If the thing works and gets the job done, then the cost is justified.
Bombers are definitly another topic and I firmly believe that they need some serious make over, right from the skills on up. Stealth? where? One good thing though - repairs are cheap. All you need is some white glue and a roll of tissue paper.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:43:00 -
[10]
Quote: Noah (CCP) informed the CSM that it was the intention for bombs to be used to break up on-grid blobs.
I've said it from day one :
Bombs will never work (as intended)
Right now they are worthless - But make them not worthless, and they are instantly overpowered.
Because if they can split up a blob, they can also kill a small gang.
Something other than bombs are needed - On paper a nice idea, but in practice you either get useless or overpowered.
BIG Lottery |
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 07:33:00 -
[11]
change the cloaking mechanics a bit so that bombs can be fired while bieng cloaked. When the bomb is fired the ship firring the bomb will be visible for a short time span "shorter then decloaking and cloaking again" - like a fade time that would enable like intercepters and other fast locking ships to slock the bomber while big ships would still be unavalible. Changing the cloaking mechanics to a fade time or the like would also mean that bombers would most likely only use passive module boosters.
Problem with stealth bombers was always that they wore designed to lock and fire at a target wile they wore cloaked. So if you want to fix them and there issues you should look into bringing the stealth back into the bomber. I know this gave a record number of problems when bombers wore first introduced but you should still take a look at this option - as the are still paper thin and easy to kill.
Maybe only allow bombs to be fired with a fade timer and leave the cruise missiles like they have "always" been.
And maybe consider some kind of mechanics where the bomber can only carry the bomb it have got loaded already and then implement some kind of support mechanics for the stealth bombers for reloading the bomb launcher so it physically requires more people to manage this ships team work ect. so that the ship doesnt become a solo pwner.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 08:12:00 -
[12]
Bombs are pretty expensive.
Rather than changing how the bomb launcher/bombs work we might need a new platform to use them from.
Say a Stealth Heavy Bomber, maybe a tier 2 or 3 Covert Ops ship.
It would have perhaps bonuses to bomb range, bomb damage, or bomb area dependent on race.
Perhaps even the ability to fit a covert ops cloak, making the shorter range of bombs still useful if you can sneak close enough.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 09:18:00 -
[13]
AOE weapons are an abortion (bombs), largely unsupported (smartbombs) or a must have (Oblivion DD). Great balance, would use again A++++++++++++ ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Stein Voorhees
Caldari Ghost in the Machine Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 13:48:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Rather than changing how the bomb launcher/bombs work we might need a new platform to use them from. Say a Stealth Heavy Bomber, maybe a tier 2 or 3 Covert Ops ship. It would have perhaps bonuses to bomb range, bomb damage, or bomb area dependent on race.
Perhaps even the ability to fit a covert ops cloak, making the shorter range of bombs still useful if you can sneak close enough.
I like this - another T2 ship type designed around Bombs, able to warp cloaked, deploying bomb 'Blinks' the cloak, allowing fast lockers a chance.
Due to their potential, if the delivery platform is sorted out, the current price tag seems ok.
-GIM- are recruiting |
Livewirez
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 16:19:00 -
[15]
For me the two biggest issues are: * the sec hit * the having to stay uncloaked until detonation
two simple solutions - sec hit- reduce the hit in 0.4 or less staying uncloaked - what is the point in having trained cloaking to have a 5 sec turn around time if the primary function of the ship negates this? - add fire and forget to it, if you've fired one of these things then you've just committed millions of isk to a single strike - at least let it go off and allow the firer to be alive to see it - blobs are a pain in the neck and it'd be nice to have a decent retalliation other than the "lets go and get a bigger blob" approach to removing them... *COUGH BoB Maximum Damage
|
Crazy Diamonds
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 16:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Noah (CCP) informed the CSM that it was the intention for bombs to be used to break up on-grid blobs. (...)
Actualy, this cannot work. I explain why :
When you warp on a blob : you have a random 1 to 10 minutes freeze to charge the grid acording to the number of ships in the grid. If you are not cloaked the blob have enought time to pod you even if 10 bombers warp in together. If CCP realy want bombers become an anti blob ship, it have to be able to stay cloaked the time for client to charge the grid. I see only one solution for this : make SB able to use covert op cloaking device.
However, there is a problem. Covert Ops will become useless and Bombers overpowered. Good luck to balance team to solve this. |
Pwett
Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 17:15:00 -
[17]
Well, as is being noted here - the greater blob will always hold the advantage because they get to load incoming ships individually rather than all at once like the incoming fleet does.
Thus, what needs to be done is that when warping to large engagements, one shouldn't come out of warp until the full landing grid has already been loaded. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Saori Rei
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:57:00 -
[18]
I am a feverent Nemesis Pilot. I love the look, feel and everything about the ship. when I heard about bombs I literally squealed in delight. Then the bombs came out and I realised I'll probably never get to use them
1) Too expensive
2) Too weak.
3) Must be shot out from a ship being used in a way that involves it getting CLOSE to the enemy.
I agree with any changes being done though I think the most important thing to change would be their cost. They just cost far far too much.
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:15:00 -
[19]
-Decrease the size of bombs or increase the size of stealth bomber cargoholds. -The current price doesn't seem too far out of line considering what bombs should be able to do. -Increase the area of effect a bit. -Leave the damage as is for now. -Get bombs to explode whether the bomber is cloaked or has warped away.
I can well imagine Bane not approving of a cargohold increase. He's Amarr. For some reason the Amarr stealth bomber, the Purifier, got a disproportionate increase in its cargohold when all stealth bombers were upgraded with larger cargoholds and the ability to fit three cruise launchers. Prior to this the Manticore was the only one that could fit three launchers. In addition, Bane is a blob warrior as a member of goonswarm, the blob specialists. I shouldn't think he'd care for something that disrupts blobs like stealth bombers carrying a large number of bombs.
These are the cargohold changes that were made in stealth bombers: Purifier (Amarr) = an increase in cargo capacity from 135 m3 to 260 m3. Manticore (Caldari) = an increase in cargo capacity from 120 m3 to 185 m3 Nemesis (Gallente) = an increase in cargo capacity from 155 m3 to 215 m3 Hound (Minmatar) = an increase in cargo capacity from 145 m3 to 195 m3
It was an interesting and uncommented bias in Amarrian favor as it coincided with the introduction of bombs in the same EVE release. Bombs are 75 m3 in size which means that the Amarrian stealth bomber is the only one that can carry up to 3 bombs at a time. The rest of us are able to carry no more than 2. This is to say nothing of the Purifiers ability to carry more of and a greater variety of cruise missiles.
Aside from that, I'd be happy if bombs did a couple of things they should be able to do just from a common sense point of view. How about having them detonate whether you've warped out or cloaked? A bomb should be something that explodes once it's set. By its very nature it is not something that requires a target lock and therefore should not require the immediate presence or uncloaked status of the launching ship.
Regards, Windjammer
|
Lake
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 09:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: TornSoul
Quote: Noah (CCP) informed the CSM that it was the intention for bombs to be used to break up on-grid blobs.
I've said it from day one :
Bombs will never work (as intended)
Right now they are worthless - But make them not worthless, and they are instantly overpowered.
Because if they can split up a blob, they can also kill a small gang.
Something other than bombs are needed - On paper a nice idea, but in practice you either get useless or overpowered.
(Emphasis mine)
There is a solution to this. I suspect it requires a new low-level game mechanic, so it's not a quick-fix. And I acknowledge that it's very counter-intuitive, but we're trying to create a disincentive for something that is by nature very good (a bigger fleet means more friends, more firepower, etc).
Bombs must do more damage to MANY targets, than they do to FEW targets.
The defining characteristic of a large group of ships is that there are many ships. There are very few other attributes which can be used to balance against them. They don't take any longer to warp out, they don't take any longer to lock targets, they don't get affected more or less by bubbles, and so on.
There are different ways to approach the specific mechanics (and even the 'RP' of it). To illustrate: The one that comes immediately to mind is a sort of 'capacitance discharge device' where each bomb consumes half of the remaining capacitor of all the ships in its blast radius to do a proportional amount of damage. But the specifics are either beside the point or will be worked out in testing and not really part of this stage of the discussion. -- eve-mail.net (thread) Instant Messaging and E-mail for EVE players |
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 09:50:00 -
[21]
Either a price reduction or ability boost needed.
At the moment I don't find the survivability of the ship is an issue, when you're pretty much destroying a bomb that costs as much as the ship, the issue is that it's not all that effective unless you have alot of them, at which point their cost effectiveness is ridiculous. Not many other weapons systems cost so much to use for so little potential effect. Pretty much all they can destroy easily doesn't cost much / can easily escape in the time they're given.
|
Rumai Ning
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:00:00 -
[22]
moar caek, less lye.
|
JVol
Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 04:01:00 -
[23]
Ive launched a few bombs, the single biggest gripe would be that they NEED to ALWAYS explode once launched unless DESTROYED, regardless of the fate of the person who launched it. When launching on very large gate camps with mixed fleet makeup its VERY likely that the bomber and pilot can be killed long before the 15 seconds it takes to detonate, when that happens now, the bomb does no damage or just doesnt explode.. bad bomb...
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 04:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: JVol Ive launched a few bombs, the single biggest gripe would be that they NEED to ALWAYS explode once launched unless DESTROYED, regardless of the fate of the person who launched it. When launching on very large gate camps with mixed fleet makeup its VERY likely that the bomber and pilot can be killed long before the 15 seconds it takes to detonate, when that happens now, the bomb does no damage or just doesnt explode.. bad bomb...
Good Point and one that shouldn't need much coding.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 14:22:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 13/07/2008 14:25:05 Bombs would break the blobs when you can break battleships with bombs :)
Atm, the usual 0.0 fleet bs tanks 70k damage because of Titans everywhere.
With a very coordinated wing, you could plant 7 bombs next to a blob of bs. The problems are range of the bomb, the damage they can do, the damage they can tank until they pop and their price.
Now they don't allow to break a blob because bombs are small targets. So they are focused by support and 1-shot before they explode. If you want to plant them, you have to get rid of the support before. But if you want to get rid of the support, you have to blob the support blob or DD them (both solutions creates a ton of lag). I think this is not an imbalance. Sig radius of bomb and minimum time until they explode are right. I would love the possibility to set bomb to explode when an objet approach them and/or allowing them to explode when a ship emit a signal. Maybe with tech 2 bombs and a new stealth command ship module : "when you activate this module, all bombs set by your fleet explode. You have to be uncloaked and under 100km to use that module." :)
The range of the bombs is a problem. No ingame blob is localized in a 15km radius sphere. Increasing the range from 15 to 30, with a falloff, would be great.
Damage could be right but to break a 70k tanked bs, you need 17.5 perfect skilled bombs. That's a lot of bombs. And if you have to plant them 7 by 7, the fleet have the time to align somewhere else and leave the field (7 by 7 makes 3 planting waves, 10 secondes for each wave makes 30 seconds). That is not breaking a blob. That is moving it to another point of the system, creating lag again. Bombs need to do damage so you break some of your targets.
What is 4000 HP in fleets ? It can 1 shot most frigates and some tech I cruisers. I think it should create a problem for heavy support too so a 6000 HP damage couldn't be that much of a problem. That change the number of wave, assumming bombs could tank enough damage so they could be planted 7 by 7 again. There, 7 bombs = 42k damage = more than half a fleet bs = a real problem for blobs under 20 seconds.
The price is a problem too. sb are paper made ships. Having 20m for the fitted ship + 40m in ammunition is a problem. Assurance is 5m. Nobody would use them until you loose 30m each time you use them. Fetchez la vache !
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 22:08:00 -
[26]
All of what is said above and more.
More damage (or energy neuted, or jam chance)
More radius of damage
More capability (explode no matter what, unless shot down)
Do one of the two following regarding maneuverability; 1) Allow the use of the covert ops cloak 2) Drastically increase the speed of a cloaked stealth bomber to make approach from off grid a viable tactic.
My two ISK. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Herring
Caldari Alcatraz Inc. Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 02:04:00 -
[27]
1. increase delivery range 2. increase explosion velocity (it needs to be effective against ALL targets, not just the bigger ones) 3. allow sb's to carry multiple bomb launchers (2) 4. slightly increase maximum damage 5. remove the bug that causes bombs not to go off when the bomber cloaks. 6. address build costs
That should about cover it.
|
Siena Petrucis
|
Posted - 2008.07.16 09:28:00 -
[28]
1. Make it more effective against larger targets. Blobs consist mainly of BS. If a bomb shall be anti-blob, it needs to focus on killing BS. At the same time, it should not easily wipe out roaming gangs with smaller ships. Considering the tank that even Cruisers have, I suggest something like: 1x damage against frig hulls 4x damage against cruiser hulls 9x damage against BS hulls 16x damage against cap hulls ...
2. Bombs need to explode even if the bomber has warped away, cloaked, is destroyed.
|
waristina
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:09:00 -
[29]
There are several good ideas above that I believe should get serious consideration due to the fact of the woeful state that bombs are in atm.
For the price you pay for the bombs they definitely need to be more powerful with a greater area of effect and falloff. This would work well with the idea that a small fast ship with low sig radius would still have a chance of getting away with lesser damage, while the slower larger ships will get a greater hit. If a ship was caught with it's pants down and was stationary then it should recieve the full benefit of the bombs effects.
No matter what happens to the deploying ship as long as the bomb was successfully launched the it MUST detonate.
I like the idea of having multiple bomb launchers (3) with the ability to also carry 3 bombs in the cargo hold. This would allow the pilot to work away from home rather than close to area's where stock is available and also reward a pilot if he stays alive to get another chance at causing trouble (rather than being a one shot wonder!).
I'm undecided as to whether you would need a COCD on the SB as that I believe would be taking away the role of the cov-ops ship to a certain degree. As long as the SB can warp into let's say a cov-ops at 0km (as suggested above), deploy his bomb straight away and then at least have a chance at warping out, then in my mind that is a good enough trade off with the above suggestions taken into consideration.
my two-penneth....
|
Sepheir Sepheron
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 02:56:00 -
[30]
A little more damage, a lot less cost.
I wouldn't pay more than a million for a bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |