| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Smelts
   |
Posted - 2009.01.04 15:48:00 -
[1]
Bombers have been screwed since release, given a pat on the shoulder when given bombs at the same time the 'kick me' note was slapped on their back... and now bent over and boned hard in the rear end with the missile changes.
CCP. What do you intend to do to fix this ship class.
WHEN will it be fixed?
|
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 17:48:00 -
[2]
CCP are aware of the problem with them and are working on a change, but the only update I've seen on that is they considered torps, so I'm not exactly full of hope right now.
|
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 18:18:00 -
[3]
Torps + being able to have a 10 second "Warp cloak" would be perfect.
By Warp Cloak I mean, it can warp cloaked, but only for 10 seconds or so. That way It can arrive on grid without being noticed on the overview, but it won't be invisible the ENTIRE time it is in the system.
Besides, I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down |
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 19:57:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 19:57:41
 Originally by: Last Wolf
Torps + being able to have a 10 second "Warp cloak" would be perfect.
By Warp Cloak I mean, it can warp cloaked, but only for 10 seconds or so. That way It can arrive on grid without being noticed on the overview, but it won't be invisible the ENTIRE time it is in the system.
"Torps" and "perfect" are two words that shouldn't be anywhere near each other when it comes to stealth bombers.
You've got similar alpha to cruises, but MUCH shorter range and pathetic ability to hit smaller stuff - and being close up in a battlecruiser priced frigate with no tank and a HORRIBLE align time is not somewhere you want to be unless you have a masochistic streak.
Edit: typo
|
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 20:13:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Adaera
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 19:57:41
"Torps" and "perfect" are two words that shouldn't be anywhere near each other when it comes to stealth bombers.
You've got similar alpha to cruises, but MUCH shorter range and pathetic ability to hit smaller stuff - and being close up in a battlecruiser priced frigate with no tank and a HORRIBLE align time is not somewhere you want to be unless you have a masochistic streak.
Edit: typo
TBH, if I'm going to spend 20 million on a frig. I want it designed to shoot at stuff worth 20 million (or more), not 150k tech 1 frigs. torps would allow it to actually be a bomber. Rush in and do some damage to BS/BC sized targets.
Also, torps have around 2x the alpha of cruise.
This is assuming the Stealth Bomber wouldn't need 3 target painters to do full damage to a BS, so a built in explosion radius bonus to get it to around 300-350 or so.
Besides, I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down |
TimMc
Gallente
Brutal Deliverance
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 20:13:00 -
[6]
Stealth bombers can no longer alpha frigates that are moving, which imo is a good change but they need to be allowed to use covert ops cloaks now. Seriously... black ops too.
|
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 20:21:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 20:24:57
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 20:21:55
Originally by: Last Wolf
Originally by: Adaera
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 19:57:41
"Torps" and "perfect" are two words that shouldn't be anywhere near each other when it comes to stealth bombers.
You've got similar alpha to cruises, but MUCH shorter range and pathetic ability to hit smaller stuff - and being close up in a battlecruiser priced frigate with no tank and a HORRIBLE align time is not somewhere you want to be unless you have a masochistic streak.
Edit: typo
TBH, if I'm going to spend 20 million on a frig. I want it designed to shoot at stuff worth 20 million (or more), not 150k tech 1 frigs. torps would allow it to actually be a bomber. Rush in and do some damage to BS/BC sized targets.
Also, torps have around 2x the alpha of cruise.
This is assuming the Stealth Bomber wouldn't need 3 target painters to do full damage to a BS, so a built in explosion radius bonus to get it to around 300-350 or so.
Right, so basically you want to fly in close, unload one volley which will barely tickle a half decently tanked BC or BS and then get laughed at before being destroyed by passing space dust or a mean look.
Oh and here are the EFT damage figures for cruises vs torps on a Manticore
both fits are with all skills at 5 and a single BCS II as well as faction ammo.
Torpedos:
2346 volley damage - now this doesn't count the ships bonus, so that in practice if the ship was changed to a torp bonus would be 2932 (+25% kinetic)
Cruises
2446 volley damage
Quite a bit short of the "2x the alpha" - so what've you got there? A flashier explosion and over 100km less range, plus the serious problems with explosion velocity.
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Oh and as for dps, torps are significantly higher, but unless you're blobbing the enemy (and let's face it, what ship can't do that?) you're not likely to get off enough volleys for it to count before some inty/warrior II/whatever decides it doesn't like you and oneshots your ship.
|
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 20:28:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Last Wolf on 04/01/2009 20:29:54
You are missing nearly 700 damage there. torps have 50% higher base damage than cruise. You using faction cruise with implants and tech 1 torps with no implants?
Still. Maybe a 100% damage bonus and -50% ROF penalty would be needed.
Besides, I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down |
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 20:32:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Adaera on 04/01/2009 20:34:17
Originally by: Last Wolf
Edited by: Last Wolf on 04/01/2009 20:29:54
You are missing nearly 700 damage there. torps have 50% higher base damage than cruise. You using faction cruise with implants and tech 1 torps with no implants?
Still. Maybe a 100% damage bonus and -50% ROF penalty would be needed.
No implants, faction ammo on both, all 5 skills and I already tweaked it for the lack of the ship bonus.
But the fact remains - you'd also need a rework of the tank on it, because come on, you're flying a ship that valuable yet that fragile and you expect to be running around at under 20km and NOT have someone decide you're a nice target for friendly mr warrior II?
About the only thing they have going for them right now is you can stay nicely out of range to avoid getting killed in the majority of situations.
|
Soporo
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 21:13:00 -
[10]
Quote:
CCP are aware of the problem with them and are working on a change, but the only update I've seen on that is they considered torps, so I'm not exactly full of hope right now.
Dumb idea, in almost any incarnation I can think of. Sure, let's take a ship that pops almost instantly to anything and force it to get in brawl range, or even medium range. Would be better off with Heavies and a rof/damage bonus.
|
baltec1
R.U.S.T.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 21:20:00 -
[11]
Bombers are far from useless, they just require a smart pilot who is willing to wait.
However I wouldnt mind a buff to make me even better
|
Rennion
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 21:38:00 -
[12]
I think the whole concept of oversized weapons is crap personally. Would rather see the newly added but currently useless bombing aspects worked on.
Would also be nice if they let them use cov-ops cloak but maybe put an astrometrics gimp on them, along the lines of the gimp destroyers have to ROF.
|
Tac Ginaz
Gallente
Coalition of Nations
|
Posted - 2009.01.05 00:56:00 -
[13]
Adaera.. you're comparing bonused cruise damage vs unbonused torp damage there.
The torp bomber would have a damage bonus (damage type/racial) as well so add that into the equation.
As for this 'brawl' range thing... cmon folks use your brain for a moment. The ship has a cloak. Range is utterly useless to a ship that can close in undetected.
Getting out? Well.. thats that sticky part. You must have some counterbalancing effect to the ship.
Using torps would be the same as using bombs. About the same range and very high damage. Heck, you could have 2 torps AND a bomb for the biggest smack! ever to come out of a frigate.
Personally Id love the bomb launchers to be re-designed as 'heavy munitions' launchers for the SB's.
Let these launchers fire heavy missiles, citadel torpedoes and bombs. Make bombs consume a lot of powergrid so only one bomb can be launched from it.
That way an SB with 2 citadels and a bomb or 3 citadels has the very best of both worlds.
Long range (citadels) but very slow missile speed..and it would only hurt BC/BS/Cap sized targets (sig. reduction bonus)...
and short range with bombs+citadels (damage+less time for enemy to react but the danger is much higher).
Giving the SB a speed boost when cloaked.. similar to a frigate using a tech 1 AB, would balance the ship out in performance.
The result is a ship that requires high missile skills (for citadels and bombs and heavy missiles) and is 'scalable' for the pilot's training ... low skill SB's would be using heavy missiles most of the time.. as they gain more skills they go into the citadels and bombs.
-------------------------------------------------
Re-Design Stealth Bomber Weapons! |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.05 06:21:00 -
[14]
To quote myself from another thread:
Bomb deployment and bombs - Worth it?
A list of improvements that I would like to see to give bombers the role of anti-fleet area-denial ships.
- Reduction of reactivation delay on bomb launcher from 160 seconds to 80 seconds (60 seconds with bomb deployment to V).
- Reduction of cargo volume of bombs to 1/3 current (current volume = 75m^3, should be 25m^3)
- Double the bomb flight speed (from 1,250 m/s to 2,500 m/s)
- Reduce bomb flight time to 10 seconds (currently 15)
- Change the Covert speed bonus from 125% per level to 175% per level (making them actually kinda speedy while cloaked) or remove this bonus entirely and allow them to fit covert-ops cloaks
- Increase the effect of lockbreaker bombs to a strength of 16 (currently jam strength 12.5)
- Increase bomb hitpoints by 40 so they can be used in waves of 6 - 7 rather than 5
- Reduce the signature radius of bombs from 400m to 250m
This is just my wishlist.
I would love to see bombers made into viable fleet threats. Then you would need interceptors to, you guessed it, intercept the bombers or the bombs, or high scan res destroyers or cruisers for the same purpose. I would even be prefectly happy with a reduction in stealth bomber agility so that launching bombs and then warping on-grid (the only viable way to lauch bombs) leaves the bomber somewhat more vulnerable with a longer time to initiate warp.
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.01.05 06:47:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Adaera on 05/01/2009 06:49:11
Originally by: Tac Ginaz
Adaera.. you're comparing bonused cruise damage vs unbonused torp damage there.
Quote:
Torpedos: 2346 volley damage - now this doesn't count the ships bonus, so that in practice if the ship was changed to a torp bonus would be 2932 (+25% kinetic)
Highlighted the bit that makes it obvious you skim readed my post, perhaps read a little more carefully in future?
And by the way, don't signatures like this which make a point of the fact there's no clear divide between sig and post annoy the hell out of you? |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |