EVE Search - Boomer Class (Cruiser SB)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Boomer Class (Cruiser SB)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
xVx dreadnaught	Posted - 2009.01.15 09:41:00 - [31] Edited by: xVx dreadnaught on 15/01/2009 09:43:51 Edited by: xVx dreadnaught on 15/01/2009 09:42:07 Originally by: Thenoran Originally by: xVx dreadnaught I wouldn't give em the Cov ops cloak... because of the same reason the current stealth bombers don't have them. Because it would make the, too deadly able to warp to a belt cloaked... The cov-op cloak is specific to hunting people down to call in support to fight them. being able to do it yourself is a bit much. But I do like the rest of your Idea. I'd like the Idea of a Stealthed turret boat aswell, one that has gets a bonus to range and damage for a short while after uncloaking. so it would be designed for hit and run. I stil recon that since they are launching TORPS! they shouldn't get the stealth warp... A small group of these things could go belt to belt in LOW-sec or 0.0 till they find a carebear and with little or no difficulty nuke a BS... The fact they get a DMG bonus to there race missles 4 of these could take out almost any BS with 1 r 2 salvo's and notgive the target enough time to fight back. I get where your coming from... down with carebears! but you gotta give em a fighting chance! The Boomers are made of paper, they would die very quickly if they attempted anything solo, being able to warp in cloaked with your gang prevents them from spotting you before you manage to cloak. It also allows the Boomer to sneak up on people a little easier. I'd swap the bonuses for extra dmg and lower explosion radius for th cov-op but not both.
Super spikinator	Posted - 2009.01.15 09:51:00 - [32] you mention carebear in 0.0 in your example I find this amusing and that is what he deserves. Joking aside I believe there is no real need for anythng other than the standard cloak, as someone said the covert ops cloak would give this ship a little too much in the way of options/advantage
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.15 10:51:00 - [33] Edited by: Thenoran on 15/01/2009 10:51:24 Some changes have been made to further improve the Boomers. The Covert Ops cloak bonus has been removed, instead they get a new bonus: "25% reduction to Cloaking Device speed and scan resolution penalty" This removes the penalties at lvl IV and gives a little bonus for those who train it to lvl V. In addition, the Amarr Cleric has a mid-slot moved to a low slot (5-3-5), and the Gallente Arxus has two mid slots moved to low slots (5-3-5). However, neither have the CPU to fit four/five BCU II's for balance reasons. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
FullMetal Basilisk Minmatar Freeform Industries	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:59:00 - [34] definatly agree with this idea, mah stealth bomber is almost useless with the speed nerf...lol
Roozu Valentine Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.01.15 19:07:00 - [35] Edited by: Roozu Valentine on 15/01/2009 19:07:20 Why would the Caldari, Amarr or Gallente make a ship class called "Boomer"? Sounds like what a baby would call a missile launcher... Name change please. Maybe "Siege Bomber" instead of "Stealth Bomber".
Roozu Valentine Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.01.15 19:08:00 - [36] Originally by: Antimony Noske Originally by: Thenoran Hull: Coercer Name: Cleric Attributes High slots: 5 Med slots: 4 Low slots: 4 Turret slots: 0 Launcher slots: 4 Too many medium slots, not enough low slots. It doesn't follow proper Amarr convention. Drop a medium slot or two, and add a low slot or two. Tell that to the Arbitrator.
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.15 19:29:00 - [37] Originally by: Roozu Valentine Edited by: Roozu Valentine on 15/01/2009 19:07:20 Why would the Caldari, Amarr or Gallente make a ship class called "Boomer"? Sounds like what a baby would call a missile launcher... Name change please. Maybe "Siege Bomber" instead of "Stealth Bomber". Boomer is a nickname for Ballistic Missile Submarines, I thought it be fitting Siege Bomber is a little plain (as it uses Siege launchers), but I'm open to other names. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Somal Thunder Intergalactic Peace Organization	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:54:00 - [38] The amarr has too many mid slots, and not enough low slots!
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:01:00 - [39] Originally by: Somal Thunder The amarr has too many mid slots, and not enough low slots! The current 5-3-5 allows for some BCUs and Sensor Boosters, going to 5-2-6 would unfairly gimp the Amarr variant when it comes to targetting range and scan resolution.
Hidden Snake	Posted - 2009.01.16 14:07:00 - [40] I like it! However they can fix the stealth bombers too. But i think this is viable.
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.16 20:26:00 - [41] The only real problem with the current Stealth Bombers in missile speed, the fix for it has been incorporated into the Boomer :)
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2009.01.16 22:21:00 - [42] NO.. no no... we are not going to create another ship in eve that makes a previous ship obsolete. no
Epegi Givo Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.01.16 23:59:00 - [43] Originally by: Andreya NO.. no no... we are not going to create another ship in eve that makes a previous ship obsolete. no this ship uses torps, much shorter range than cruise missiles. and I don't think this ship can use bombs. ------------------------------------- My other alt is a Ferrari
Shaka Quatuic	Posted - 2009.01.17 00:16:00 - [44] Originally by: Andreya NO.. no no... we are not going to create another ship in eve that makes a previous ship obsolete. no Eve is an evolving universe. as such, it should be expected that over time old ships are superceded and eventually rendered obsolete by new designs. frankly I am somewhat dismayed that new models of ships - and I mean NEW models from the ground up and not merely upgrades and refits ala Tech2/Tech3 - are not introduced far more frequently. The last major T1 ship introductions were the tier 3 Battleships and Tier 2 Battlecruisers, and those cannot really be considered to be truly new construction, as they dont incorporate Tech 2 components and base abilities like shield and armor resists. this basically points to serious conceptual flaws in how CCP handled the Tech level and Tiering systems for ships and items in eve, especially pertaining to industry and vessel construction - but thats a whole other topic.
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.17 00:20:00 - [45] Originally by: Andreya NO.. no no... we are not going to create another ship in eve that makes a previous ship obsolete. no The Boomer won't make the Stealth Bomber obsolete at all, it can't use Bombs, it will be a lot more expensive, the range on it won't be as much and the Boomer will have a hard time hitting anything the size of a Frigate. In addition, a Stealth Bomber would still be a lot easier to skill for and train. It's like comparing an AF to a HAC. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.20 15:24:00 - [46] Oh yay, another useless class. 1) No covops cloak = no cloak, as there is no plausible scenario in which you use a non-covops cloak in combat. Remove the pointless cloak bonuses and add something useful. 2) Tissue paper hull = suicide ship. While 4x torps will do some nice dps (assuming the velocity/radius bonuses are enough to hit cruisers effectively), a destroyer hull means your ship will just insta-pop.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2009.01.20 16:04:00 - [47] what about a different approach ? like slow ass missiles with autonomous homing device ? the bomber approaches, fires a few and bugs out (either cloak or warp). the missiles will continue on their own to the target and explode on contact .. they can be jammed or shot down before impact to get rid of them ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.20 23:04:00 - [48] Originally by: Sera Ryskin Oh yay, another useless class. 1) No covops cloak = no cloak, as there is no plausible scenario in which you use a non-covops cloak in combat. Remove the pointless cloak bonuses and add something useful. 2) Tissue paper hull = suicide ship. While 4x torps will do some nice dps (assuming the velocity/radius bonuses are enough to hit cruisers effectively), a destroyer hull means your ship will just insta-pop. It's not a Force Recon ship with a CovOps cloak and 4 Siege Launchers, it's meant as a step upwards from Stealth Bombers, not something to tank. I did give it the Covert Ops cloak at first but it met with a lot of resistance so I changed to be in line with the current Stealth Bombers. And since it's not meant to be used as an 'in your face' ship, it doesn't really need one to close in or anything.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.01.21 12:08:00 - [49] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 21/01/2009 12:13:25 Originally by: Shaka Quatuic Eve is an evolving universe. as such, it should be expected that over time old ships are superceded and eventually rendered obsolete by new designs. Why? The entire point of EVE's PvP system is that new players in T1 ships can be just as effective as old players in T2 ships, albeit potentially requiring larger numbers. Thus those early ships should never be rendered completely obsolete, and most certainly a T2 larger ship should not render a T2 smaller ship completely obsolete. Consider AFs - for a long time people complained they lacked a role - now they have one. The mere fact that people complained instead of simply saying 'oh well, train for the HAC' is an indication that you cannot make a specific ship-type obsolete. Force recons don't render a covops obsolete, for another example. Every ship I can think of in EVE has an intended role that (at a minimum) no other ship in the same race lineup is intended to do. Unfortunately, as it happens, the Stealth Bomber is one of those ships whose role appears to have fallen a bit by the wayside, and thus I can cope with the notion of looking again at the entire concept. My questions as to the OP would be: what is this ship for? What do you see it killing, and how? How would you defend against it? Part of the issue with the current Stealth Bomber outside of 0.0 is that it's essentially a poor man's ambush, and requires a non-SB to tackle anyway. It has uses, but they are very niche, and in my view too niche. I'd like to hear more about this ship's intended role - why would I fly one and what I am trying to kill?
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.21 13:54:00 - [50] This ship is primarly meant to ambush Cruisers, Battlecruisers and even Battleships. It's nowhere near as fast or agile as the current Stealth Bombers and they can't use Bombs. They are mostly ineffective against Frigs and Cruiser still get a damage reduction. In addition, these ships are not going to be 150km away but probably around half that, allowing them to decloak, fire a volley and quickly recloak if needed. They won't make the Stealth Bomber obsolete as it has no covert ops abilities, requires a lot more skill and ISK and aren't as effective against Frigates and Destroyers as the current Stealth Bomber. You may see them as just a bigger and badder version, but essentialy it is all they can do. A Stealth Bomber can still use Bombs, has the speed and agility of a Frigate (and the low cost) and they can set up Covert Ops stuff. The Boomer is purely for dealing damage against larger targets through stealth, ambushing a lot faster against targets (but are at a little more risk due to less distance) due to higher missile speed and less distance. You can defend against them less than you can a normal Stealth Bomber, but they are paper thin and you will still see the missiles coming. Even four Torpedos when you take in defense skills and resistances aren't going to instapop everything they come across. Although I did think about mixing this class with the Force Recons (Covert Ops cloak, close range, medium tank and the 4 torps) it would be overpowered as heck. If you want to get a cheap bomber, or a scout with Covert Ops abilities or you will take on smaller targets or you are going to use Bombs? Grab a Stealth Bomber. If you want to deal damage against Cruisers or bigger without them getting away before your first volley? Grab the Boomer, it can't do much else.
Shaka Quatuic	Posted - 2009.01.21 17:25:00 - [51] Edited by: Shaka Quatuic on 21/01/2009 17:26:17 Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 21/01/2009 12:13:25 Originally by: Shaka Quatuic Eve is an evolving universe. as such, it should be expected that over time old ships are superceded and eventually rendered obsolete by new designs. Why? The entire point of EVE's PvP system is that new players in T1 ships can be just as effective as old players in T2 ships, albeit potentially requiring larger numbers. Thus those early ships should never be rendered completely obsolete, and most certainly a T2 larger ship should not render a T2 smaller ship completely obsolete. I think you misunderstand my point... over time, new ship designs using new technologies should be introduced that at any given Tech level and tier are superior to their predecessors - at which point the older design's BPOs stop being offered for sale on the NPC market. for instance, after the first couple years the stabber should have been phased out of the NPC BPO market, having been replaced by a completely new model that uses some T2 components in it's construction (not enough to make the new model the equal of a vagabond, but overall slight improvements to resists, armor etc. while keeping a similar slot layout to the original stabber). the stabber BPOs already in circulation would still be buildable, but the market value of the old stabber would drop in the short term until it started to become rare (kind of like an old car). basically I am saying that over time the general capabilities of T2 ships such as shield systems, baseline engines etc would gradually be adopted into T1 new construction, while retaining the original skill requirements of the ship that is being phased out. the specializations of T2 vessels would remain with the specialized classes as (to continue my example from above) as since the stabber hull would be phasing out, a new T2 heavy assault cruiser would be developed to use the new base T1 model, but using some T3 components (this is IMHO how T3 should be introduced, instead of the somewhat stupid idea of ship customization ccp is moving forward with). the same would hold true for higher Tier vessels within the T1 tree. the Hurricane battlecruiser for example should use a few T2 components in its' construction compared to the Tier 1 cyclone. Once a new Tier 1 BC replaces the Cyclone, pressure would be on for a Hurricane replacement etc. as the new cyclone replacement would be equal or superior to the hurricane, and the command ship versions of the new ship would utterly kill it. this is how the world works - recycling the same ship models forever is boring and counter-productive.
Wardo21	Posted - 2009.01.21 21:20:00 - [52] Originally by: Ammath Honestly I think this would be better done with the Destroyer Class. Its the only ship class without 2x T2 variants. Er, last time I looked, we only had one T1 variant destroyer per race to begin with. I wouldn't mind seeing the "boomer" class as a destroyer, but how about another destroyer class vessel or two in tech 1? Or for that matter, where's my tech 2 variant of the mining frigate? (Bantam etc.) Or both command ships being based off the same battlecruiser?
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.01.22 14:03:00 - [53] Originally by: Shaka Quatuic ..Reply... Ahh - understood. More a larger question of evolution, and certainly an interesting notion going forward.
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.22 20:37:00 - [54] Having a Covert Ops Cloak or not will remain a tricky subject, it can make it overpowered on one side, a Boomer with a Force Recon would potentially be very devastating. On the other side, I do agree that not having it means you have to visibly warp in, when I'd rather see a Boomer only decloak to fire. It would have to have some kind of counterbalance to the Covert Ops Cloak if it were to be given the ability to use it. Note that even if the Covert Ops Cloak were to be given to it, it won't get any of the other Covert Ops ability such as cyno stuff. I was also thinking of increasing the Explosion Velocity bonus to 20%, up from 10% as a Torpedo's Explosion Velocity is so low that a 10% bonus might not cut it against the intended target. Ideally a Boomer should be seen as a submarine attacking a surface ship, only surfacing(decloaking) to engage a target and hope it gets destroyed before being fired upon and sunk. The only way to achieve that without getting it amazingly overpowered (we don't want an Arazu/Rapier with four Torps) would be for the Torpedoes to continue on their course even if you cloak again before they hit (decloak, fire, cloak, boom), but keeping the tank paper thin. This is however somewhat negated if you get targetted (passive targetter/sensor damp may help here). You would still be vulnerable in the few seconds you decloak (as you cant recloak instantly (5-10 second delay instead of the usual 30 might be good)), in which (again) four Torpedoes won't be the end of the world for the target. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Mikeli Soth Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.23 04:11:00 - [55] Edited by: Mikeli Soth on 23/01/2009 04:11:18 Originally by: Shaka Quatuic I think you misunderstand my point... over time, new ship designs using new technologies should be introduced that at any given Tech level and tier are superior to their predecessors - at which point the older design's BPOs stop being offered for sale on the NPC market. for instance, after the first couple years the stabber should have been phased out of the NPC BPO market, having been replaced by a completely new model that uses some T2 components in it's construction (not enough to make the new model the equal of a vagabond, but overall slight improvements to resists, armor etc. while keeping a similar slot layout to the original stabber). the stabber BPOs already in circulation would still be buildable, but the market value of the old stabber would drop in the short term until it started to become rare (kind of like an old car). basically I am saying that over time the general capabilities of T2 ships such as shield systems, baseline engines etc would gradually be adopted into T1 new construction, while retaining the original skill requirements of the ship that is being phased out. the specializations of T2 vessels would remain with the specialized classes as (to continue my example from above) as since the stabber hull would be phasing out, a new T2 heavy assault cruiser would be developed to use the new base T1 model, but using some T3 components (this is IMHO how T3 should be introduced, instead of the somewhat stupid idea of ship customization ccp is moving forward with). the same would hold true for higher Tier vessels within the T1 tree. the Hurricane battlecruiser for example should use a few T2 components in its' construction compared to the Tier 1 cyclone. Once a new Tier 1 BC replaces the Cyclone, pressure would be on for a Hurricane replacement etc. as the new cyclone replacement would be equal or superior to the hurricane, and the command ship versions of the new ship would utterly kill it. this is how the world works - recycling the same ship models forever is boring and counter-productive. This is not real life. The devs, in all their almighty knowledge, must keep the balance. If they started increasing t1 resists and stuff, there would be no reason to fly t2. Yes, I know that t2 would be better still, but if i had to choose a stabber that had resists halfway between the normal stabber and a vaga, well one is around 4ish mil, and nearly as good, and the other is over NINE THOUS, oh, i mean 96 mil. Take your pick. Stabber stabber with awesome resists, or a expensive vaga.
Thenoran Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY	Posted - 2009.01.23 11:17:00 - [56] The Boomers won't have much in the way of resists at any rate as it's not their role to tank anything. Also, another addition I've pondering about, as a secondary role bonus: 100% bonus to Torpedo damage but 50% penalty to rate of fire. Means your alpha strike does double the damage without increasing the actual DPS due firing twice as slow.

Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.