| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
   |
Posted - 2008.11.07 20:24:00 -
[31]
Seriously i dont what the hell you lot are going on about, But the stealth bomber is going to be even better after this patch. If you feel otherwise, feel free to contract all your bombers to me.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 21:07:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Straight Chillen
Seriously i dont what the hell you lot are going on about, But the stealth bomber is going to be even better after this patch.
Why do you think this is the case? ....unless you're referring to Sb being better targets. 
|
Zakru Anul
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 22:18:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Crellion
The only way in which bombers would be a serious ship is if they had a class bonus effectively negating completely explosion velocity and explosion radius problems for all but the very tiniest of targets and the fastestof targets that would get a maximum of 50% reduction.
I have never failed to kill a stealh bomber in a ceptor in TQ. Ever.Let alone Sisy
you Yet too run across my bomber. lets meet on QT before the Nerf bat hits one of my Fav ships too fly.
on SIsi the Bomber is worthless. when i Fire 3 missiles at a T1 unfit frig moving at it's base speed and it lives something it More then wrong.
the Bombers have Low HP levels for a T2 ships anything that can Take a Volly or 2 can simply beat them no issues, it's strong point was that it can take out that Same target with a well placed Missiles wave.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 10:40:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 10/11/2008 10:41:05
Update:
Okay, so here's the problem with bombers if they go live:
They will no longer have a significant role to play. Just from reading over this thread, most agree that they were originally broken, but they found a nitch harassing and one-shotting T1 frigates and interceptors. However, with the changes to cruise missiles, that one shot will probably not be enough to kill anything that isn't at a full stop and target painted - something that negates the whole idea of the stealth bomber.
So the bomber's role could go one of two ways - large targets (torps? a new missile type?) and area attacks (bombs) or small targets (a boost to rockets or missile range) and bomb deployments.
Either would be a step up from what where looking at going live tomorrow night. Please don't make this fun and challenging ship platform useless.
Please give your input, and tell me what you think of these ideas.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 10:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Zakru Anul
on SIsi the Bomber is worthless. when i Fire 3 missiles at a T1 unfit frig moving at it's base speed and it lives something is More than wrong.
Here is the problem in a nutshell.
PPL want a frig that can 1 volley other frigs and ships, do we have a class of cruisers that can 1 volley other cruisers or BC that can 1 volley other BC or even BS that can 1 volley other BS?.
With this "new eve" the idea behind the bomber is broken as it uses BS sized weapons but ppl think it should hit and insta pop frigs and things, it should not it should only hit BS for full missile dmg and have the same drawbacks against smaller ships that other cruise missile ships do.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:12:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Murina
PPL want a frig that can 1 volley other frigs and ships, do we have a class of cruisers that can 1 volley other cruisers or BC that can 1 volley other BC or even BS that can 1 volley other BS?.
With this "new eve" the idea behind the bomber is broken as it uses BS sized weapons but ppl think it should hit and insta pop frigs and things, it should not it should only hit BS for full missile dmg and have the same drawbacks against smaller ships that other cruise missile ships do.
Just reading your post I can tell you've never flown a bomber. It is so hard to get that one shot kill that it is nearly impossible. even with top skills, you can't one shot an assault ship, or even a well tanked T1 frig or destroyer.
But at the same time, the resists on the bomber make it a totally defenseless platform. Should any T1 ship get even a lock on you, you are finished.
The bomber is far from a solo pwn mobile that you make it out to be. at best, its a glass cannon to the extreme. quite pretending that it can one shot anything but shuttles and destroyers/frigs without any tank at all, or ones that are already compromised.
But at the same time, I don't see you complaining that one volley from a gank kestrel would send a T2 ship worth many fold it's value straight down the drain.
Are you begininning to see the trade-off?
This ship is paper thin and gets literally one shot only.
If you take away the one shot, but don't compensate the ship with resists, then it's a 15mil ISK suicide vessel that can accomplish nothing. You might as well fit it, undock, and initiate self destruct - it would accomplish the same thing, much , much faster.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:16:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Terra Mikael
Just reading your post I can tell you've never flown a bomber. It is so hard to get that one shot kill that it is nearly impossible. even with top skills, you can't one shot an assault ship, or even a well tanked T1 frig or destroyer.
Did you read this:
Originally by: Zakru Anul
on SIsi the Bomber is worthless. when i Fire 3 missiles at a T1 unfit frig moving at it's base speed and it lives something is More than wrong.
and my reply PROPERLY?.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:21:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 10/11/2008 11:22:20
I read it all.
I'm sorry, but an unfit frig vs any other T1 frig would be dead in seconds. I fail to see the difference of why a T2 frig, fit for total gank could not do the same. Especially since it completlely traded its tank.
True, it is a balance. Give us more tank, take some firepower.
If they hit live now, we will have neither.
|
McFly
C0LDFIRE
RUDE Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:23:00 -
[39]
Edited by: McFly on 10/11/2008 11:27:41
Originally by: Terra Mikael
...then it's a 15mil ISK suicide vessel that can accomplish nothing. You might as well fit it, undock, and initiate self destruct - it would accomplish the same thing, much , much faster....
Look at light dictors, 1 bubble and their out, and with further speed ner-f-age (edit since f-a-g is censored) they probably wont even be able to get in position to drop a good placed bubble. But that was just because the Sabre was wicked fast and they had to nerf all the other dictors to justify bring the sabre down.... which i still think is complete BS.
Here's a heavy dictor.... while we take the light dictor away....
So nerf a ship to uselessness has happened before and will prolly happen again.
I agree with a lot of what u said in the total post tho, Bombers should have a bonus to precision or something to allow them to keep their current role.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Terra Mikael
True, it is a balance. Give us more tank, take some firepower.
If they hit live now, we will have neither.
Sure, fly a AF you cannot have a monster alpha, plus good tank, plus good dps all in one frig pal or it would make all the others pointless.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:34:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 10/11/2008 11:31:06
Edited by: Murina on 10/11/2008 11:29:04
Originally by: Terra Mikael
True, it is a balance. Give us more tank, take some firepower.
If they hit live now, we will have neither.
Sure, fly a AF.....
you cannot have a monster alpha, plus good tank, plus good dps along with the ability to drop bombs all in one frig pal or it would make all the others pointless .
Like i said bombers break the mold ccp wants eve to become.
Serious question.
Have you ever flown a bomber?
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:38:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Murina on 10/11/2008 11:41:46
Originally by: Terra Mikael
Originally by: Terra Mikael
True, it is a balance. Give us more tank, take some firepower.
If they hit live now, we will have neither.
Sure, fly a AF.....
you cannot have a monster alpha, plus good tank, plus good dps along with the ability to drop bombs all in one frig pal or it would make all the others pointless .
Like i said bombers break the mold ccp wants eve to become.
Serious question.
Have you ever flown a bomber?
I flew the nemisis when the first came out but my missile skills are a little lacking and my main has 60+ mil sp in pure pvp so i tended towards better ships than frigs.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:47:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 10/11/2008 11:50:12
Originally by: Murina
I flew the nemisis when the first came out but my missile sakills are a little lacking.
So I'm guessing you don't know about the problems with bombs (its basically a suicide run), and they can only be used in zero sec. Not only that, but if you cloak, your bomb becomes a 10 million dollar paperweight. Same with missiles.
the ship has no tank, and no real tank at all - its thinner than the interceptor.
I agree with you that a ship shouldn't have tank and gank. But the stealth bombers gank - with good skills and best modes available - is about a 3k alpha - and that's ****ing outstanding skills and mods, but still before resists get factored in. But that amount of damage can be accomplished by most AF in a probably about 10 seconds - only they have tank and speed to back up their bite.
Although many use dampeners, the ships has no bonuses for them - which would greatly help the situation.
You must see that this leaves the assault frigates without a role. We will have no gank (cruise missiles vs frigates are useless now) and not enough to bother cruisers. But we have no tank.
So where does that leave the SB?
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 11:57:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Terra Mikael
So I'm guessing you don't know about the problems with bombs (its basically a suicide run), and they can only be used in zero sec. Not only that, but if you cloak, your bomb becomes a 10 million dollar paperweight. Same with missiles.
I knew all that as we spent a lot of time on the test server working in groups of 20 laying down pattern's around gates to see how well it worked as a anti-blob weapon.
Originally by: Terra Mikael
We will have no gank (cruise missiles vs frigates are useless now) and not enough to bother cruisers. But we have no tank.
So where does that leave the SB?
Its a problem as i said, maybe they just added way to many frig classes and have run out of viable options and a role for the SB due to this new nerf.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 13:18:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 10/11/2008 13:26:25
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 10/11/2008 11:59:52
Originally by: Terra Mikael
So I'm guessing you don't know about the problems with bombs (its basically a suicide run), and they can only be used in zero sec. Not only that, but if you cloak, your bomb becomes a 10 million dollar paperweight. Same with missiles.
I knew all that as we spent a lot of time on the test server working in groups of 20-30+ laying down pattern's around gates to see how well it worked as a anti-blob weapon against invasions. (Blob jumps in, we uncloak, drop bombs in a set pattern around the gate, blob goes boom, server crashes ).
Originally by: Terra Mikael
We will have no gank (cruise missiles vs frigates are useless now) and not enough to bother cruisers. But we have no tank.
So where does that leave the SB?
Its a problem as i said, maybe they just added way to many frig classes and have run out of viable options and a role for the SB due to this new nerf.
I'm glad we agree that there's at least some serious problems with the platform which will only be compounded by the patch.
Honestly, the role it plays is already covered by several other ships - for anti-blob, doomsday spamming seems to work well enough for most null sec'ers. For anti-frigate, AF or pretty much any other frigate or drone ship works fine.
There isn't much use for her at all, then.
What do you suggest?
I'm somewhat against giving them siege launchers, since battleships have enough problems to worry about already. But if we gave them long range small rockets, I would have to ask what the point is.
If it had some other role that it could play in low-high sec, some niche it could fill, this wouldn't be such a difficult problem.
After the changes, it could probably make a decent missioning ship with the right rigs. Has anyone tested that out? battleships shouldn't be able to hit it if it's moving, right? same with BC and Cruisers....
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 13:39:00 -
[46]
We did do changes to stealth bombers on our development servers, but we were in agreement with QA that we didn't have sufficient time to test the changes properly for Quantum Rise.
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
Nozh
Game Designer
CCP Games |
|
dojocan81
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 13:55:00 -
[47]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We did do changes to stealth bombers on our development servers, but we were in agreement with QA that we didn't have sufficient time to test the changes properly for Quantum Rise.
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
torps on SB ?!? 
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 14:25:00 -
[48]
Isn't that just moving them further from their intended role?
Considering that a torpedo won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn* in Quantum Rise, and that most battleship sized ships can take a few dozen torps, doesn't that make SB's more pointless?
*unless that barn happens to be 450m or so in length on it's broad size.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Takon Orlani
Caldari
Chaos Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 15:27:00 -
[49]
Bombers are cheaper than battleships and more speedy too.
They'd probably get a range bonus so you have to operate at 40km or so.
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 15:41:00 -
[50]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
Isn't that just moving them further from their intended role?
Considering that a torpedo won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn* in Quantum Rise, and that most battleship sized ships can take a few dozen torps, doesn't that make SB's more pointless?
*unless that barn happens to be 450m or so in length on it's broad size.
Their intended role is complete, utter and unequivocal bull****. This is a glorious change.
Mad props CCP!
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 16:17:00 -
[51]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We did do changes to stealth bombers on our development servers, but we were in agreement with QA that we didn't have sufficient time to test the changes properly for Quantum Rise.
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
This please.
One suggestion though, how about a reduction in damage from AoE attacks (SB's, Bombs and DDD). A fleet of DDD proof torp wielding SB's seems to me like a great "torpedo boat" for capship killing swarms.
Dal
Originally by: HEXXX
In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 16:48:00 -
[52]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We did do changes to stealth bombers on our development servers, but we were in agreement with QA that we didn't have sufficient time to test the changes properly for Quantum Rise.
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
100% bonus to torp damage and an explosion velocity bonus? 
Would probably need torp velocity/flight time bonuses as well.
|
Crellion
Art of War
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 17:35:00 -
[53]
If you do change them to torp ships they might be worth it but you need to make sure they:
1) Hit ALL BSs for full damage with torps up to say 400 m/s with a single painter and
2) That they end up with at least 50% more dps than currently... everything else =fail.
A further improvement to suggest:
Special Role Bonus for Stealth bombers: No stacking penalty on TPs operated from Stealth bombers... Have enough of them lighting up together and a frig=a barn...
This latter one is the sort of thing I d like to see from CCP at a day and age when all systems are same-ish
Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 17:45:00 -
[54]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
Torpedo Damage? Are you serious?
You're going to have a metric a**-load of dead SBs on your hand. The only reason they survive is range....torps negate that.
|
Tac Ginaz
Coalition of Nations
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 18:02:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We did do changes to stealth bombers on our development servers, but we were in agreement with QA that we didn't have sufficient time to test the changes properly for Quantum Rise.
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
Nozh,
Thanks for the reply. As a dedicated SB pilot who, for the past few years have felt completely ignored and unloved, this reply of yours gives me at least some hope that you guys are aware of the SB's issues (or at least that there is an issue with it!).
I've posted this suggestions before and I'd like to post it again here.. I would really appreciate your opinion on it (and under the understanding it is your opinion not CCP's position or future plans).
Give the stealth bomber a triple attack role: Big alpha strike damage vs big ships (not instapop) and medium/small ship harrasser.
Currently it is a harasser of ships up to cruiser level via cruise missiles. To make it an alpha damage striker vs big ships (BC-BS-Caps) you'd need to allow the bomber to use Citadel torpedoes.
This is easily done and kept balanced by:
-Changing the bomb launcher to accept citadel torpedo ammo.
-Adding a 4th launcher slot to each bomber.
-Changing bomb launcher PG/CPU bonuses on ship so that a bomber can fit 4 bomb launchers.
-Adding a cap. drain effect on bombs.. so that only ONE bomb can be fired from the stealth bomber (it prevents quad-bomb firing)
-Adding bonus to stealth bomber so that citadel torpedoes do full damage vs Battleship sized targets.
With the above changes, the stealth bomber has a very high alpha strike damage vs all ship types BUT not enough to kill them in one volley (well except the T1 newbie frigates and shuttles). In fact, it would take 3 or 4 stealth bombers firing quad citadels each to kill a battleship in one shot...
and when you think about HOW a stealth bomber would attack a BS with citadels you will realize it will have to be fired from very short range as the citadel torps fly so slowly... attack range of 10km still means it takes 6 seconds for the torps to hit.
The biggest issue the stealth bomber has always had has been the fact that it is made of paper and fires a weapon that although is high damage compared to its ship size, its a weapon that takes a lot of TIME to reach target...time enough for target to warp out or kill the SB with its insta-damage guns.
Hence the bomber MUST become a very high damage, almost point-blank attack craft.
For this we need the citadel torpedoes. No other weapon fits the bill. an 8k (4X2k damage) alpha strike damage vs a battleship is not insta-pop but it does mean SERIOUS damage.
And as the bomb launcher has 160 secs+ refire time, it means the bomber can only fire the citadels once every 160 secs.
It is all balanced.
What do you think?
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 18:46:00 -
[56]
i'd like 1400mm T2 artilleries with 40m signature resolution on my hound, plz.
but seriously... we don't have to cling to the idea with the cruise missles. there's the bomb launcher now. granted, it's not much by itself.
but if we do cling to it.. F F S use painters (if you dont have anybody who webs for you)
http://www.walterzorn.com/grapher/grapher_e.htm
-- a 65m scimitar vs a "all lvl 4"-bomber and 0,1,2 painter(s):100 * MIN(MIN(65/40,1) , (096.6/40 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 4.5));
100 * MIN(MIN(65*1.36/40,1) , (096.6/40 * 65*1.36/x)^(0.1975 * 4.5));
100 * MIN(MIN(65*1.36*1.3129/40,1) , (096.6/40 * 65*1.36*1.3129/x)^(0.1975 * 4.5)); x 0..1000
y 0..100
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Tac Ginaz
Coalition of Nations
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 19:09:00 -
[57]
you do realize the painter has to be active on target when the missiles strike or its useless right?
...and you do realize most bombers will be locked, and likely DEAD before said cruise missiles reach target right?
That's the SB dilemma. We have high damage missiles for our ship size... but they take time to get to it. We must be uncloaked for the missiles to deal damage...and we have zero tanking ability. All this results in the stealth bomber uncloaking, locking target, getting locked in return as your missile volley starts to leave your launch tubes...and being a sitting duck for insta-damage guns as the SB waits for his cruise missiles to reach target.
Its dumb.. just plain dumb.
The stealth bomber's stealth reminds me of INVISIBLE BOY from MYSTERY MEN.
Invisible Boy claims he can become invisible, but only when no one (including himself) is looking.
(duh)
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 21:49:00 -
[58]
I think you just need to expand upon your tactics. As has already been stated the stealth bomber is a glass cannon, you look at it funny and it WILL explode. I usually wait untill the fight has started to decloak and pick off targets of opportunity. If you decloak before the hostiles have called primary's, you will be one of them, no doubts about it. Flying a stealth bomber is truly a game of patients and cunning. Which is why the are by far my favorite ships to fly.
So again anyone who wants to get rid of their bombers, Contract them to me, ill be happy to buy them, Just no manticores. |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 23:15:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 10/11/2008 23:23:49
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 10/11/2008 23:23:10
I'd rather see a reduced radius bonus coupled with an explosion speed bonus. Range is everything if you dont want to use bombs.
And to the poster above me; explosion velocity is nerfed on cruise missiles, this severly limits the targets you can succesfully engage ( ie. deal dmg too ).
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 23:32:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 10/11/2008 23:36:08
Originally by: CCP Nozh
In our test changes we removed the explosion radius bonus (moving them away from the "anti-small ship" role) and gave them a fair bonus to torpedo damage. We'll probably do some more changes to them and release them to Singularity when Quantum Rise is ready and deployed to Tranquility.
Please no. I would argue that this would make the problem even worse. While currently, bombers are at least marginally useful against long-range threats like Falcons, this only works because the target is paper-thin. Giving them torps makes it impossible to snipe hostile support, but trades that target for one they don't have the alpha to kill. Battleships have MUCH higher HP than a bomber's current targets, FAR more than the increase in damage from using torps. A battleship will just laugh off a single bomber (or even a small gang of them) and then insta-pop it with drones. To get the kill and survive, you'd need so many bombers that you could kill the target just as easily with ANY ship. Even if you give them a 100% damage bonus to torps (IOW, the damage output of a gank fitted battleship), you still have done nothing to fix the two fundamental problems with bombers:
1) They aren't stealthy. Since you have to warp in uncloaked and give away your presence, there is no practical way to use them as stealth ships. Vast amounts of player experience have proven very clearly that the only useful cloak in combat (as opposed to hiding in a safespot or cloak->warp tricks for escaping gatecamps) is the covert ops cloak. Without it, bombers will be better off scrapping the whole stealth idea and spending all of that CPU on another BCU II instead.
2) Bombs suck. Right now, they're way too expensive. Even the QR change does not fix this issue, it reduces the cost, but not enough to make using them practical. The damage is just too low for something that costs 15 million ISK just to TRY to kill something. Either bombs need to be reduced in cost to the level of interdictor bubbles (which do FAR more damage to a blob), or they need to be massively boosted in damage. Also, since a bomber can't effectively use both bombs and missiles at the same time, bombers should either get the option to fit 3x bomb launchers, or bomb launchers should use the currently-worthless 5th high slot.
-----------
Blaster sig removed for now, pending those "changes we've been working on all day". CCP, don't screw this up.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |