EVE Search - Devs - about Bombers...

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Devs - about Bombers...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2008.11.19 19:45:00 - [211] Edited by: Pac SubCom on 19/11/2008 19:47:00 Originally by: Hugh Ruka now you have the marketing crap out of the way ... can you actualy contribute to the thread with a suggestion for future bomber changes ? thanks ... All such "suggestions" come down to "moar damage". More dps, more alpha, more tank to have more time to do more damage, more speed to get into range quickly to do more damage, more speed to evade damage to have more time to do more damage. Such a thread like this here is not necessary - we get it, you want more damage. Now there are people who use the bomber successfully. It has a role, and it is useful. One bomber might kill a frig, ten bombers can do much more. It is obvious what DNSBLACK is talking about, I mean, look at all those medslots. Cloaked speed is tactically useful. --------------- ∞ TQFE
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.11.19 20:01:00 - [212] Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 19/11/2008 19:47:00 Originally by: Hugh Ruka now you have the marketing crap out of the way ... can you actualy contribute to the thread with a suggestion for future bomber changes ? thanks ... All such "suggestions" come down to "moar damage". More dps, more alpha, more tank to have more time to do more damage, more speed to get into range quickly to do more damage, more speed to evade damage to have more time to do more damage. Such a thread like this here is not necessary - we get it, you want more damage. Now there are people who use the bomber successfully. It has a role, and it is useful. One bomber might kill a frig, ten bombers can do much more. It is obvious what DNSBLACK is talking about, I mean, look at all those medslots. Cloaked speed is tactically useful. ok here we go again ... another smart person ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2008.11.19 20:19:00 - [213] Originally by: Hugh Ruka ok here we go again ... another smart person ... Indeed. Do you want me to explain pvp to you? Ok, now, there are the bees and the flowers. The flowers, as you know, they want to make more flowers, and to that end they have seeds. To make more seeds, they need something from the other flowers, and that is called pollen. Some flowers just release the pollen into the wind and hope that the pollen is caught by other flowers. But many wait for the bees. To attract the bees, they have something else called nectar. This nectar tastes very sweet to he bees, who enter between the petals and drink the nectar. While they do this, pollen attaches itself to the legs and body of a bee, who then carries it to the next flower. There the pollen from the bee merges with the female pollen of the other flower, and from this fertilized female pollen seeds form which are released and when they fall to the earth, with water there will be new flowers. And it is the same with mommy and daddy. Daddy is like the bee. Now go and play with your spaceships.
DNSBLACK Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates	Posted - 2008.11.19 20:30:00 - [214] To add the bee insight. The bomber looks like a flower, smells like a flower and act grows like a flower. The kicker is when multipule bees land on the bomber flower it has a spiecal skill it close shut and eats all the bees. The scary part for bombers is when a big bad gardener comes by and clips off it flower and burns it. Such is life and eve. Black
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.19 22:34:00 - [215] Originally by: Tac Ginaz That would be ships using some high end gear. Again, I am not going into the 'this fit would make the bomber useless' as there are an insane number of different setups. If a ship has a damn good setup with high end gear then its obvious it would need a few more bombers to take it out. No, that would be ships using plain T2 fits. Seriously, just set it up yourself and look at the numbers. Even low-end battleships have 60-80k EHP, and a heavily tanked battleship can go well over 150k. With implants and faction mods, that number goes well over *300k. Quote:* That is a minor issue easily fixed by making the torps have damage resists to its own damage type just like the bombs do. Fixed for bombers, but do you really want it "fixed" like that for capitals? Anyway, the problem should be really obvious: tank scales up much faster than damage. Using torps/citadel torps aims bombers at larger ships, but the percent increase in EHP of the average larger ship is much larger than the percent increase in damage. This means that while you have higher damage, it now takes a lot more bombers to kill your new target than it did with the old target/weapon. With torps of either kind, you're looking at stupidly one-sided numbers before bombers are even remotely useful. Can anyone here really believe that a ship that requires 10:1 odds to successfully engage its intended target is balanced and an effective use of pilots? What CCP needs to do is just scrap the current design and start over from the beginning, with a clear goal of what the ships are supposed to do.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.11.20 10:41:00 - [216] Edited by: Terra Mikael on 20/11/2008 10:45:43 Edited by: Terra Mikael on 20/11/2008 10:44:01 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Can anyone here really believe that a ship that requires 10:1 odds to successfully engage its intended target is balanced and an effective use of pilots? What CCP needs to do is just scrap the current design and start over from the beginning, with a clear goal of what the ships are supposed to do. I would have to agree with this sentiment. That bomber has to be able to one shot something, or be given the staying power to be able to kill something. And I'm not asking, as others have suggested, a solo pwn mobile, but by being a stealth bomber has to imply some ability to be able to operate alone behind enemy lines. I would be happy if I could simply hold a target down (such as a badger). This would bring it back to a U-boat type role. But, another option that I just thought of would make the platform a little more interesting. I think the class should break into two entirely new branches: a heavy bomber, and a light bomber. Maybe looking something like this: edit: And is the cov-op cloak for the heavy bomber is a bit excessive, the normal cloak with the speed bonus (same as current) would be acceptable. But since it will be attacking large targets, which will probably be fleeted after QR, I believe a cov-ops cloak is necessary to give it a more favorable chance of survival. Edit2: the heavy bomber's role is supposed to be harassing ships >cruisers, not less than. ________________________________ Originally by: Korovyov You WIN! And by win, I mean suck horse manure.
Bobbechk The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.11.20 11:40:00 - [217] I'd like to see a missing ship class... theres stealthbombers, and i for one think they shouldnt be solo wtf alpha pwn, your gonna need a pack of them to intercept or bomb anything... but to do this they really need cov ops cloak.... what im missing here is the bomber class, a frigate with torps (just as intended for sb lately) but no claoking, just a kind of anti "capital - BS"- frigate capable of evading most dmg from these shipclasses in orbit but melt in the face of itnerceptors and AF or other anti frigate ships.... i think this could offer a new type of gameplay at the same time as af's and ceptors would get a new important role to defend fleets (no moore warp in BS, kill everything, cyno in caps slugfest) ...
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.20 12:46:00 - [218] Originally by: Terra Mikael Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Looking at your chart why would anybody fly any frig in a frig gang other than the heavy bomber?. And NO just because summat has the words "stealth" and "bomber" in its title does not mean it should be a solo ship. I assume you have heard the phrase "bomber squadrons" they certainly imply a group of ships. We are already finding it hard to make the bomber fit in and you wanna turn it into two ships instead of one, one of witch would never be used and the other that would out class all other frigs as a gank gang ship.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.11.20 14:42:00 - [219] Edited by: Terra Mikael on 20/11/2008 14:44:59 Originally by: Murina Originally by: Terra Mikael Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Looking at your chart why would anybody fly any frig in a frig gang other than the heavy bomber?. How about because a standard t1 frigate could omgwtfpwn a heavy bomber? That seems like a pretty good reason... Besides, theres no room for tackle, and you would be ineffective against anything smaller than a BC - so a frig gang of heavy bombers alone would die miserably. You may e able to warp around cloaked, but unless you have a very specific target, and have a way to avoid smaller ships, you'll probably die doing what you're suggesting.
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.20 15:51:00 - [220] Edited by: Murina on 20/11/2008 15:55:53 Originally by: Terra Mikael How about because a standard t1 frigate could omgwtfpwn a heavy bomber? That seems like a pretty good reason... Besides, theres no room for tackle, and you would be ineffective against anything smaller than a BC - so a frig gang of heavy bombers alone would die miserably. So you just stay cloaked and kill BC or larger ships, that is hardly a difficult thing considering you can warp cloaked. TBH considering the variety of ships in eve already i do not think we need another two classes of frigs that are very similar to the cruiser recon class only smaller and with higher alpha strikes. Plus the fact that once again ccp would be introducing a totally separate form of ship that is designed purely for missile users and giving nothing to gunnery ship users. I did not like the idea the first time because of this (although i did train up some skills to actually use the bombers as bombers) as increasing the number of specialized missile ships is not fair to gunnery trained players.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.11.21 05:02:00 - [221] lol agree to disgree? ________________________________ Originally by: Korovyov You WIN! And by win, I mean suck horse manure.
JafoPBCFR One Stop Mining Shop	Posted - 2008.11.21 13:59:00 - [222] Kinda had a thought. What if there was a Launcher that could load all types of missles. Before ya go crazy on me hear me out. The launcher would be one already in use. It could only Load a certain Amount. As a SB only going toget off 2 at best shots. This was you could Change your missle to fit the target. Also allow the Bomb Launcher to fit with full Launchers. This would allow a MultiRole use and flexabilty. IMHO!
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.11.23 02:37:00 - [223] So yeah, any ETA on the bomber changes, Nohz? ________________________________ Originally by: Korovyov You WIN! And by win, I mean suck horse manure.
Strill	Posted - 2008.11.23 04:34:00 - [224] Edited by: Strill on 23/11/2008 04:39:04 Originally by: Murina Originally by: Tuncan Why would anyone use battleships then? TYO FIGHT OTHER BS OFC, LIKE I SAID READ THE PATCH NOTES BS WEAPONS ARE NOW SUPPOSED TO ONLY DO FULL OR EVEN GOOD DMG TO SIMILAR SIZED SHIPS. If battleships > battleships, and everything else > battleships, then why would you fly a battleship in the first place?
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.11.23 06:01:00 - [225] Originally by: GateScout Edited by: GateScout on 07/11/2008 05:08:23 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 1. Max velocity of a light missile is modified by skills 2. Orbit speed of an inty realistically (ie, no snakes and comedy pure speed fits) more like 4km/s on sisi and is below max light missile speed 3. The missile damage formula has been altered: read and weep 4. A light missile actually does around 20-30% of its max damage on an average inty in orbit. This can be boosted by ship bonuses and/or rigs also. SO now we're talking about interceptors that are orbiting? Not Frigs any more? Not just ceptors? Not about out running missiles? Make up your ****ing mind! LOL. You keep changing the question. I'm not whining about anything, you imbecile. Your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking. Bottom line: Interceptors can still out run light missiles on SiSi right now. 4km/sec? Easy. My crow on SiSi is going 4971m/s, basic t2 fit, no implants, no rigs, and skills that are NOT max'd. ....and light missiles can catch me. Keep trying though.... At least you're entertaining. EDIT: Oh yeah... SBs are over with this patch....unless you find a lone, stationary, target painted target. A) You fail B) Stealth bomber are best in GROUPS, were ppl can target paint, tackle etc for you C) Light missiles CAN and DO hit inties on sisi, its called skill multipliers, u can hit them even when a 5km/s inty is going in a straight line (missile goes bout 6kms with lev 4 support skills). Ive tried it on sisi, and they always hit, you obviously havent and are therefore trolling. Lyria is indeed correct. EVE history Missiles post-nerf
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.11.23 06:12:00 - [226] Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 23/11/2008 04:39:04 Originally by: Murina Originally by: Tuncan Why would anyone use battleships then? TYO FIGHT OTHER BS OFC, LIKE I SAID READ THE PATCH NOTES BS WEAPONS ARE NOW SUPPOSED TO ONLY DO FULL OR EVEN GOOD DMG TO SIMILAR SIZED SHIPS. If battleships > battleships, and everything else > battleships, then why would you fly a battleship in the first place? Becasue battleships are insurable, have good dps, r*pe webbed/painted targets and have good ehp + tank? EVE history Missiles post-nerf
Ancy Denaries Caldari Solaris Operations	Posted - 2008.11.23 07:18:00 - [227] Originally by: GateScout 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. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Breathes heavily* AAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHA!!! You are SUCH a moron! If Stealth Bombers get to use torpedoes, don't you think they will also get an added range bonus? Gawd. Balance is important, but you will always adapt to changing circumstances and you don't whine about stuff you can't change.
Polinus Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.11.23 11:56:00 - [228] Forget SB. Make the HSG (h for huge) a t2 tier 2 BC that have SB bonuses.. but it can fit and fire 6 citatel launchers :P THAT would be funny :P
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.11.23 12:11:00 - [229] An idea I had. Its how I would have implemented bombers. Make them work as bomberts, powerfull against static targets, or in eve terms larger targets. And weak against fighters (on eve those are frigates). Forget all bonuses they have now. Give bomber the capability of using torps. Give it a torp speed bonus to give it more range (10% per level). Now give a huge explosion signature PENALTY!!! Like 100%. And an explosion speed penalty of like 33% Now give it a huge damage bonus like 33% per level (total 165%). The other 2 bonuses can be speed while cloaked (Same it had) and the bomb bonus. Objective? A ship that can be devastating against larger ships, but only larger ships. Would be a cheap counter against capitals (BS level dps but against big ships only ). And when using target painters support then useful against battleships. The anti frigate role should be on destroyer not the BOMBER (btw we need a proper combat t2 destroyer also). This way bombers would work like the small speed torpedo boats in WW1 and ww2 that could kill capital ships if they were allowed to get close. But at same time very fragile if forced to engage ships like destroyers and light cruisers. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.23 19:54:00 - [230] Instead of changing the kind of weapon the SB specializes in, how about giving it a missile velocity bonus so it has a chance to cloak before the BS it is targeting vaporizes it? As for bombs, make the SB unable to cloak for 2-3 seconds while the bomb is set (or insert your explanation here), then it can vanish. Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew!
Tac Ginaz Gallente Coalition of Nations	Posted - 2008.11.23 21:01:00 - [231] Edited by: Tac Ginaz on 23/11/2008 21:04:20 Also, personally, I think the bomber being a frigate is stupid. I say skill requirement for the bomber should be racial frigate 5 and destroyers 3 and make the fricken' bomber be a destroyer hull (like i said in another thread, just give them the hulls of the shuttles each race uses except caldari, the cormorant is too cool for words, supersize them to destroyer size, give them a darker camo paint job. As they are destroyer sized, their signature is larger as is their shields and armor. With the increase in size and mirroring their destroyer heritage, adjust the ship's stats and bonuses thus: - 50% refire rate for launcher weapons + X % increase in damage of heavy missiles per destroyer level + X % damage bonus to damage type for bombs, siege torps and heavy missiles (racial) - X % in PG / CPU reduction of Siege Launchers per Torpedo Specialization level (enough so it fits 4 at torp spec 5) - X % in PG / CPU reduction of Bomb Launchers per Bomb launcher level (at lev 5 2 bomb launchers can be fitted) - X % in PG / CPU reduction of cloaking device to per cloaking level. Box 3 = improved cloak II, box 5= covop cloak. - X % reduction in lock time after de-cloak based on COVOP skill (no delay to lock at level 5 covop) + X % speed increase when cloaked based on Cloaking Skill level (200% at level 5 cloaking) (max capability of this ship is 6 heavy launchers or 2 bomb launchers or 4 torp + 2 heavy launchers at max skills) This new bomber design should be allowed to have its weaponry capability 'scaled' to the player's skills. As you can see, this bomber has MANY skills required to acquire full capability. The basic setup is Heavy Missiles and Cloak. Heavy missiles with the scaled damage bonus makes it very effective vs cruiser sized hulls when we look at alpha damage (50% penalty to refire rate remember that!). It also does not have full speed when cloaked nor no-lock-delay when uncloaking unless player gets box 5 of the covop/cloak skills. No covops cloak ability unless the required skill box is reached. As the skill level increases, the player receives the ability to deal higher damage via the use of multiple siege torpedoes and/or bomb launchers. At max skills the bomber player is a fearsome opponent yet still needs to work in a team to bring down a large target. ------------------------------------------------- Re-Design Stealth Bomber Weapons!
Strill	Posted - 2008.11.24 04:04:00 - [232] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 23/11/2008 04:39:04 Originally by: Murina Originally by: Tuncan Why would anyone use battleships then? TYO FIGHT OTHER BS OFC, LIKE I SAID READ THE PATCH NOTES BS WEAPONS ARE NOW SUPPOSED TO ONLY DO FULL OR EVEN GOOD DMG TO SIMILAR SIZED SHIPS. If battleships > battleships, and everything else > battleships, then why would you fly a battleship in the first place? Becasue battleships are insurable, have good dps, r*pe webbed/painted targets and have good ehp + tank? You're missing the point. If battleships are a counter to each other, and everything else is capable of countering battleships, there's no reason to use a battleship in the first place. You would have more versatility flying another ship that can deal with battleships and another ship class or two.
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.24 08:32:00 - [233] Originally by: Strill You're missing the point. If battleships are a counter to each other, and everything else is capable of countering battleships, there's no reason to use a battleship in the first place. You would have more versatility flying another ship that can deal with battleships and another ship class or two. Its you who are missing the point, BS sized weapons can now only do FULL DMG to large targets. Small ships like frigs and cruisers can easily get under the tracking of gunnery ships and sig/speed tank BS sized missiles. Everything else is not capable of countering a BS simply due to the fact that it can fit drones and that in a gang the gunnery NS will be a different ranges so getting under the transversal of them all would be imposable and the dmg from a missile gang would soon add up......let alone the drone swarm from them. POST NERF PVP SKILLS: "shall we engage?" "hmmm how many ships do they have?" "more than us" "lets not bother then" "WOW great job FC!!!!" ".................
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.11.24 15:38:00 - [234] This thread is far past any usefullness it once had, i sincerely hope that any dev's who were reading it, stopped taking it seriously. All this is, is a few people wavinging their epeen and infallible logic around thinking they have the supreme idea. Really the only sound idea that has come out of this entire thread is that we need two very different kind of bombers. One long range, one short range. Thanks to those who actually brought idea's to the table. The rest of you can go on with rubbing your epeens and **** posting 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
Adaera	Posted - 2008.11.25 16:19:00 - [235] Grouped volley. 95.5 damage on a frigate. Thanks CCP.
Varituru	Posted - 2008.11.26 08:25:00 - [236] Interested to see what the devs have done with bombers since QR... IMO they should just do away with stealth(flame cap, yes I know), since a hard hitting bomber with stealth apparently cant be implemented without it being overpowered.... Just make it an old fashioned bomber... Give the Frigate-sized ship high resists/low sig/med speed (for frigs) take away the stealth capability and just give it Torps. Torp range wouldn't be as much an issue since range would no longer be the tank for the ship, and the ship would be finally usable in fast moving gangs/fleets. In comes the droves of QQ about not being able to have the element of surprise... My response to that cryfest is just go get an Arazu, its better suited for that gameplay style. The role of the bomber has been lost in the devs quest to solve the issue of balance. Guess what, SBers in real life are overpowered, and that's why they're used.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.11.26 09:04:00 - [237] Edited by: MotherMoon on 26/11/2008 09:05:32 /I cried today when I got 3 cruises sent at me in a frigate. I was standing still. and I took... like... 200 damage... this is **ed up, while I believe the changes are in the right direction, missiles should ** still ships. if your not moving, say good bye! actully that should be one of thier new things, they should one shot pilots that aren't paying attention, but still do like no damage to a frigate when it's moving, that would be a fun role to fill.
Theqwert125	Posted - 2008.11.27 01:23:00 - [238] Edited by: Theqwert125 on 27/11/2008 01:23:52 I think the core of the issue is the blob monster again. The bomber is based on high alpha/low rof, but to do any meaningful damage solo or in a small group, its alpha will one shot its intended targets if flown in moderately larger groups. Being hit by a gang of bombers should be an OH SHI- moment, not a 'Tacklers watch yourself' moment. Unfortunately, with only a few more bombers, that OH SHI- becomes 'crap, time to buy a new ship'. I really have no idea where CCP can go without over or underpowering the bomber unless they make it something totally different.
Varituru	Posted - 2008.11.29 04:58:00 - [239] Edited by: Varituru on 29/11/2008 04:59:27 Originally by: Theqwert125 Edited by: Theqwert125 on 27/11/2008 01:23:52 I think the core of the issue is the blob monster again. The bomber is based on high alpha/low rof, but to do any meaningful damage solo or in a small group, its alpha will one shot its intended targets if flown in moderately larger groups. Being hit by a gang of bombers should be an OH SHI- moment, not a 'Tacklers watch yourself' moment. Unfortunately, with only a few more bombers, that OH SHI- becomes 'crap, time to buy a new ship'. I really have no idea where CCP can go without over or underpowering the bomber unless they make it something totally different. I think the core issue is that theyre trying to make SBs fill a role that is better filled by just about any ship. All they need to do if fix bombs so theyre useful and dont require the pilot to suicide/sacrifice a ridiculously expensive frigate... Or they can change the makeup of the frigate so its just a good ole regualar bomber. SBs are use in real life because they have little to no counter... So that is a stupid thing to implement into a game.
Norath84 Shadows of the Dead Elitist Cowards	Posted - 2008.11.30 10:10:00 - [240] Some idea's i had How about making them go 5-10k ms when cloaked and/or make it impossible to De cloak them until they turn it off them selfs

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.