Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AdmiralDovolski
Gallente N.A.S.A. Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 04:50:00 -
[1]
well, with the new patch, all cruise missile ships are being nerfed.
with the exception of 1
the stealth bomber (post patch) looks to be an extremely useful ship due to the missile rework. not only will the missiles be able to hit almost everything, but due to the new missile formulas, the sig radius bonus makes it exceptional.
i personally see stealthbombers as the new "anti-nano" tactic, other than gallente/minatar recons
anyone else think this way?
----------------------- I AM DOVOLSKI!!! |
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 04:53:00 -
[2]
Well the whole patch is sorta anti-nano. Not sure how Bombers are gonna figure into that.
But their missile accuracy bonus will continue to be very useful, yes. I really like Bombers although I lost my last one (+ pod) in an embarrassing PvP incident.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 04:57:00 -
[3]
I don't think so. Bombers die to anything that can scratch their paint. They also cannot tackle and they use missiles that take a while to hit.
Can you link me to the stealth bomber changes? Last I heard on sisi is that they were fairly useless. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
AdmiralDovolski
Gallente N.A.S.A. Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 05:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vaal Erit I don't think so. Bombers die to anything that can scratch their paint. They also cannot tackle and they use missiles that take a while to hit.
Can you link me to the stealth bomber changes? Last I heard on sisi is that they were fairly useless.
they arent being changed, its just what they lob at the enemies. the cruise missile nerf involves screwing up the explosion radius to make it largely innefective against smaller targets
however, the bombers bonuses allow it to hit smaller targets for full damage, and if they can hit in the new patch, they will do damage.
also, i wasnt talking 100km ranges here. im talking 20km ranges, so very short.
----------------------- I AM DOVOLSKI!!! |
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 05:12:00 -
[5]
Bombers were never meant to either tackle nor fit a tank. They weren't even really meant to fit T2 launchers. They are, IMO, one of the most precisely balanced and nuanced ships in all of Eve, and I'm glad I had a chance to applaud the guy who came up with the idea of Eve Stealth Bombers at Fanfest '07 (he was at Eris's lecture.)
As long as they can continue to accurately strike relatively small and quick targets from extreme distance with high damage missiles, they are still working as intended.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 05:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: AdmiralDovolski
they arent being changed, its just what they lob at the enemies. the cruise missile nerf involves screwing up the explosion radius to make it largely innefective against smaller targets
however, the bombers bonuses allow it to hit smaller targets for full damage, and if they can hit in the new patch, they will do damage.
also, i wasnt talking 100km ranges here. im talking 20km ranges, so very short.
EDIT: they are also getting a somewhat large speed boost, if you read the devblog that was first posted on speeds. they should reach speeds comparable to AF's now
2 factors to missile damage, speed and sig radius. Cruise missiles have taken a cut to both - firing at an inteceptor moving at 800 m/s (no AB / MWD), you'll do about 40 damage per missile due to the speed. As a result, unless your small target is sitting still, you are going to have an issue. In fact, based upon the tests I've seen, cruise missiles hitting an AB battleship (moving at 350 m/s) only do about 60% of damage.
Getting a sig bonus is great, but without a velocity bonus, Stealth Bombers will continue to not be very effective against small ships. At least they do'll do damage this time however (unlike TQ where you just had to hit 4k/s and you were pretty much taking 0% damage), but you won't be insta-popping frigates unless you have him webbed, or substantially target painted.
|
Cruentiorus
Defenders of the Plain of Aleion
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 06:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: SecHaul
Originally by: AdmiralDovolski
they arent being changed, its just what they lob at the enemies. the cruise missile nerf involves screwing up the explosion radius to make it largely innefective against smaller targets
however, the bombers bonuses allow it to hit smaller targets for full damage, and if they can hit in the new patch, they will do damage.
also, i wasnt talking 100km ranges here. im talking 20km ranges, so very short.
EDIT: they are also getting a somewhat large speed boost, if you read the devblog that was first posted on speeds. they should reach speeds comparable to AF's now
2 factors to missile damage, speed and sig radius. Cruise missiles have taken a cut to both - firing at an inteceptor moving at 800 m/s (no AB / MWD), you'll do about 40 damage per missile due to the speed. As a result, unless your small target is sitting still, you are going to have an issue. In fact, based upon the tests I've seen, cruise missiles hitting an AB battleship (moving at 350 m/s) only do about 60% of damage.
Getting a sig bonus is great, but without a velocity bonus, Stealth Bombers will continue to not be very effective against small ships. At least they do'll do damage this time however (unlike TQ where you just had to hit 4k/s and you were pretty much taking 0% damage), but you won't be insta-popping frigates unless you have him webbed, or substantially target painted.
Whatever you may have seen means crap now. The changes means that speed is the smallest issue when figuring missle damage. Sig radius is the big issue. Stealth's get a bonus to this and as such a ceptor that is not outrunning my cruise missle (traveling at 6000m/s) is going to get hurt. You cannot speed tank missles anymore, stop comparing next week to this one.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 06:14:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Cruentiorus Whatever you may have seen means crap now. The changes means that speed is the smallest issue when figuring missle damage. Sig radius is the big issue. Stealth's get a bonus to this and as such a ceptor that is not outrunning my cruise missle (traveling at 6000m/s) is going to get hurt. You cannot speed tank missles anymore, stop comparing next week to this one.
Alright, unless something has changed in SISI in the past few days after I tested it, let's wait and see. Out of curiosity, have you been on SISI to test firing your cruise missiles at inty's? Here is a link to the new missile formula, and as I understand it, inty's will be getting a bonus to sig radius while using MWD.
Missile formula
Here is a number for you:
Cruise missile fired from a bomber - ~50 sig radius Inty moving at 4000 m/s with ~150 sig radius (i.e. the sig bonus isn't in place) Damage reduction - 87% Now if that inty does get a sig radius reduction, damage reduction is 95%
So please explain how that hurts?
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 09:00:00 -
[9]
people talk missles but i rather talks bombs... i havent tested them atm on tets server but thats what iw ould ike to know,.. www.garia.net |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: SecHaul
Cruise missile fired from a bomber - ~50 explosion radius
1. You can get it down to 18 Meters if you want.
2. Don't ask what 1 bomber can do, ask what a group can do.
--------------- ∞ TQFE
|
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Pac SubCom 2. Don't ask what 1 bomber can do, ask what a group can do.
Yah. Most times I flew my bomber, or had people with me that did, we've had tacklers in the gang. I've generally been sat at 75-150km away firing my cruises. Tackler = scrambler = web. If it's a Rapier post-patch, it might very well have a TP as well.
|
Krets
Gallente 7ulm Saif Niobe Industrial Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:21:00 -
[12]
well this patch/expansion has as an added bonus that the TP get's more vialble in PvP again. So minnie's have got a bit of lubin'
|
Flash Bombardo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:37:00 -
[13]
And I just bought a Raven !
Damn !
|
Cruentiorus
Defenders of the Plain of Aleion
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: SecHaul Edited by: SecHaul on 05/11/2008 06:22:02
Originally by: Cruentiorus Whatever you may have seen means crap now. The changes means that speed is the smallest issue when figuring missle damage. Sig radius is the big issue. Stealth's get a bonus to this and as such a ceptor that is not outrunning my cruise missle (traveling at 6000m/s) is going to get hurt. You cannot speed tank missles anymore, stop comparing next week to this one.
Alright, unless something has changed in SISI in the past few days after I tested it, let's wait and see. Out of curiosity, have you been on SISI to test firing your cruise missiles at inty's? Here is a link to the new missile formula, and as I understand it, inty's will be getting a bonus to sig radius while using MWD.
Missile formula
Here is a number for you:
Cruise missile fired from a bomber - ~50 explosion radius Inty moving at 4000 m/s with ~150 sig radius (i.e. the sig bonus isn't in place) Damage reduction - 87% Now if that inty does get a sig radius reduction, damage reduction is 95%
So please explain how that hurts?
EDIT: Just had a look on SISI, Inty's are indeed get a sig reduction while using MWD bonus. I think you really need to get onto SISI and test this out, because the missile changes have significantly impacted the speeds at which missiles do damage.
You did not test a stealth bomber with decent skills against a inty with MWD. At current an Inty gets about 95% damage reduction with AB on and about 85% with MWD... at 800 damage a missle, I will let you do the math on how many volleys you can get off from 150km with a 5km/s inty heading at you and how much damage your inty can tank.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: AdmiralDovolski
i personally see stealthbombers as the new "anti-nano" tactic, other than gallente/minatar recons
Well nanos are dead so its not so useful with a anti nano tactic anymore.
|
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 13:12:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Esmenet Well nanos are dead so its not so useful with a anti nano tactic anymore.
Given how many anti-nano tactics that are going out of style because nano is dead, chances are that nano will be the way to go…
|
CTec
Wasting Time RnD
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 13:28:00 -
[17]
Originally by: AdmiralDovolski i personally see stealthbombers as the new "anti-nano" tactic, other than gallente/minatar recons
anyone else think this way?
Unless you can Alpha strike a recon and take it down then I would say no. Recon can Damp/Jam you (certain ones anyway). Some FC's say Stealth bombers should not in fleet because they cannot dish the damage as well as the same pilot in a BS/HAC.
Bombs to be viable need to be fire and forget but from further away 18km gives the bomber no time to get out. IF the stealth bomber could fire their cruise missiles and cloak back up then they would be a menace.
The name Cruise missile not only give conentations of Long distance weapons but after a lock and fire the missile should not need the firing craft still locked on target for termination on target.
EVE mechanics - what can you do?
|
Dr NOe
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 13:44:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Garia666 people talk missles but i rather talks bombs... i havent tested them atm on tets server but thats what iw ould ike to know,..
Only change is the amount of production per run. More for same amount of resourses to drop the price.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 14:10:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cruentiorus You did not test a stealth bomber with decent skills against a inty with MWD. At current an Inty gets about 95% damage reduction with AB on and about 85% with MWD... at 800 damage a missle, I will let you do the math on how many volleys you can get off from 150km with a 5km/s inty heading at you and how much damage your inty can tank.
I'm sorry, but did you even read my posts? Clearly not, because you have just written exactly what I have written. So you disagree with me, then agree with me - do you just troll for the sack of it?
In my first post I outlined that each missile will do about 40 damage (800 * 0.85 = 120 before resists per your numbers, and 800 per missile is a very well trained stealth bomber).
In my second post I outlined that a MWD'ing inty would take about 87% to 95% damage reduction, and I believe your MWD test is wrong, was that inty with max skills to reduce sig radius? Because a MWD'ing inty has about a sig radius of 37.5 odd, and with the formula above, that results in a 97% reduction to damage before resists at 5k/s, however I would need to retest on SISI to see if my first test took this change into account.
Either way, let's take your 85% damage reduction, which is 360 per volley assuming you hit a 0% resist (which is impossible unless you fire the right missile for shields, followed by a second for armor, etc.). A common nano crow has 1800 EFP, so you'll need 4-5 volleys approximately per your math. Per my math, you'll need 10-15 volleys. Either way, read my first post again:
"Stealth Bombers will continue to not be very effective against small ships. At least they do'll do damage this time however (unlike TQ where you just had to hit 4k/s and you were pretty much taking 0% damage), but you won't be insta-popping frigates unless you have him webbed, or substantially target painted."
4-5 volleys is not insta-popping, but 4-5 volleys is better than TQ, yes?
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 14:16:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Esmenet on 05/11/2008 14:17:16
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Esmenet Well nanos are dead so its not so useful with a anti nano tactic anymore.
Given how many anti-nano tactics that are going out of style because nano is dead, chances are that nano will be the way to go…
With among other things (heavy) neuts as one of the new must fit modules (if it wasnt already) you might want to rethink that.
|
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 14:02:00 -
[21]
SISI test
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |