| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
   |
Posted - 2009.01.21 20:50:00 -
[1]
There has been a significant increase in the discussion of stealth bombers on the forums in recent months, primarily hinging on the QR missile damage reduction changes. As to the validity of many of the claims made in these threads, I cannot fully comment, but I personally do see issues regarding this ship class.
What are the short comings of the Stealth Bomber?
The primary problem underlaying stealth bombers is that while they do have bonuses focusing on both ôstealthö and ôbombingö they do not perform either of these tasks overly effectively, especially in tandem. They are a ship class capable of performing in ways other ships are not, but these capabilities are not, in their present incarnation, overly impressive.
Stealth?
Indeed. Any ship fitting a cloak is æstealthÆ, but only those capable of maneuvering and traveling undetected truly deserve the name. Stealth bombers cannot warp cloaked, robbing them of the element of surprise when they arrive on the battlefield, and instead gain a speed bonus of approximately 56% at maximum skills while cloaked. While having mobility while cloaked is a boon, +56% really isnÆt all that impressive for a ship otherwise hindered around this same ability (the cloak is life).
The greatest æstealthÆ bonus these ships possess is the ability to lock and activate modules immediately after dropping cloak. Around an alpha strike oriented ship able to recloak seconds after dropping cloak this ability is very powerful. It is offset however by the fact that the weapon systems of these vessels are damage delayed and don't function if the bomber is cloaked.
Bombing?
Ah yes, bombing. Bombers fit battleship sized missile launchers and are capable of achieving impressive salvo alphaÆs for a frigate sized hull. They can also fit bomb launchers and launch area-of-effect bombs. In comparison to the alpha damage and hit-points of large ship hulls however, these stealth bomber alphas are not so impressive.
Cruise missiles have some severe drawbacks. Firstly, cruise missiles are significantly damage delayed, nullifying your stealth advantages if you remain uncloaked to exploit the range of cruise missiles, or exposing your ship to far greater danger if you engage closer to counter this disadvantage. Secondly, cruise missile damage is significantly reduced against the stealth bomberÆs greatest threat (other frigates), turning your expensive, and frail, stealth bomber into primarily an expensive, low-DPS fire-support vessel against cruiser sized hulls and larger. While these are all considerable shortcomings to the performance of the cruise missile stealth bomber, I see them not as overly game-breaking for this ship, but part of the finesse required to use it effectively.
The largest performance outlier in bomberÆs offensive power is bombs. I could write a great deal on why they are sub-par, but as most everyone who as ever looked at or launched any of these things knows, they need a lot of work. The concept behind the bomb is sound, it is the implementation and interaction of the stealth bomber and the bomb that are screwed up. They pretty much define ôpre-nerfedö as a showcase; a wonderful idea, a delicious tactical tool, but absolutely abysmal in their release, and current, state.
Allright smartguy, what would you do then?
Two options. Redefine their role, or strength their performance as it is now. Personally, I like the concept of the role of the stealth bomber; surprise devastating damage, but exceptionally vulnerable if you are discovered/anticipated. Low DPS, extreme alpha.
But what should the true role of the stealth bomber be? Stealthy DPS support for small gangs, or a ground-shacking anti-fleet tool? In my opinion both should be possible, but with a heavy design influence towards the |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 20:51:00 -
[2]
Stealth Bomber Changes
The Stealth Bomber must be stealthy
The stealth bomber should be true to its name and be a slippery little devil. Completely screwed if caught out in the open, but a bugger to lock down when you arenÆt expecting/anticipating it. I see two mutually exclusive solutions to give the stealth bomber this ability, and these are:
- Change the Covert speed bonus from 125% per level to 200% per level. With this increase to the speed bonus, a max skilled covert ops pilot can reach the same speeds while cloaked as he would uncloaked using an afterburner. By activating an afterburner and then cloaking, the pilot can reach MWD equivalent speeds.
Or
- Remove this bonus entirely and allow stealth bombers to fit covert-ops cloaks.
The Stealth Bomber must have devastating alpha-strike damage
In their current incarnation, stealth bombers achieve 2000-2500 point alpha strikes typically, depending on fit and missile type. While this alpha strike is impressive for such a small ship and the current 83.3% reduction in cruise missile explosion radius is nice, these factors only truly benefit the use of cruise missiles against frigate and tech 1 cruiser hulls, where this amount of alpha is significant. Against interceptors the stealth bomber is of dubious usefulness (damage reduction due to MWD sig penalty reduction).
The stealth bombers could, frankly, use an alpha boost against larger targets, but increasing their alpha too significantly against frigate (excluding interceptors) and cruiser sized hulls could be potentially overpowered. After some number crunching, these are the modifications I settled on
- Change the magnitude of the cruise missile explosion radius reduction from 16.66% to 11.11% (result is 100 m explosion radius).
- Include an additional modifier into this bonus, reduction of missile damage reduction factor by 0.3 per level (result is 3.0 reduction factor)
- Give stealth bombers the role bonus: 100% increase to cruise missile damage, 50% rate of fire penalty. Gives stealth bombers twice the alpha they have now, with no net change in fixed DPS.
The result of these three changes are
- Slightly more than double the volley damage against interceptors as current with a minor boost to actual DPS against interceptors.
- Roughly 40 - 50% increase to current volley damage against frigate sized hulls with about 25% less actual DPS.
- + 20% to 40% increase in volley damage against cruiser sized hulls but roughly 20 û 30% less DPS.
- 100% increase to volley damage against battlecruiser and larger with no net change in DPS, with the exception of afterburner fit battlecruisers (still increases volley damage, but not by 100%).
The numbers range so significantly, especially with cruisers, due to the disparity in damage reduction between afterburner and MWD fits.
Some examples (excluding resistances)
Crusader
Old volley damage: 140-150 (~10 DPS). New volley damage: 325-350 (~11 DPS)
Rifter
Old volley damage: 500-600 (~43 DPS). New volley damage: 850-950 (~32 DPS).
Zealot
Old volley damage: 2400 (170 DPS). New volley damage: 3100-3200 (110 DPS).
Hurricane
Old volley damage: 2400 (170 DPS). New volley damage: 4800 (170 DPS).
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 20:52:00 -
[3]
Bombs must be a viable tool in practice
I cannot stress this enough. If bombs were useful, and bombers squadrons prolific, it would change the entire landscape of fleet battles.
In the current EVE, with effective hit-point pools being what they are (everyone fitting to tank Doomsdays), it takes a large amount of bombs to destroy fleet-fit battleships, somewhere on the order of 10 to 15 bombs total. Add the fact that the sphere of destruction is only 15km in radius, bombs can only be detonated in groups of 6 or less, and there is a delay of at least 2 minutes between bombings, the anti-fleet capability of bombs is questionable.
Below are listed improvements to strengthen the role of bombers as 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)
- Increase the effect of lockbreaker bombs to a strength of 16 (currently jam strength 12.5)
- Increase bomb hitpoints by 40 so one more bomb can be used per wave
- Reduce the signature radius of bombs from 400m to 250m
These, in addition to the stealth changes mentioned earlier for the ship class, would be a shot of new tactics straight into the veins of large gang and fleet battles (a squadron of 6 bombers would be more valuable than 6 additional buffered-sniper Battleships).
Stealth Bombers must retain vulnerability
In consideration of all mentioned above, stealth bombers become quite powerful, albeit situational and only devastating when used in groups. The natural counter to a stealth bomber, it would seem, is any ship with the scan resolution to lock onto a stealth bomber within the 5 second cloak reactivation window. A minor increase to signature radius and slight reduction in ship agility might be prudent to grant the stealth bomber just a bit more vulnerability, to make up for the new gains.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 20:52:00 -
[4]
Summary
Stealth bombers should be strengthened in the alpha damage and bomb delivery departments, and granted improved stealth mobility over that currently. Modifications to achieve these ends are:
- Change the Covert speed bonus from 125% per level to 200% per level or removing this bonus entirely and allow stealth bombers to fit covert-ops cloaks.
- Change the magnitude of the cruise missile explosion radius reduction from 16.66% to 11.11% (result is 100 m explosion radius).
- Include an additional modifier into the cruise missile bonus, reduction of missile damage reduction factor by 0.3 per level (result is 3.0 reduction factor)
- Give stealth bombers the role bonus: 100% increase to cruise missile damage, 50% rate of fire penalty.
- Reduce the reactivation delay on bomb launcher from 160 seconds to 80 seconds (60 seconds with bomb deployment to V).
- Reduce the 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)
- Increase the effect of lockbreaker bombs to a strength of 16 (currently jam strength 12.5)
- Increase bomb hitpoints by 40 so one more bomb can be used per wave
- Reduce the signature radius of bombs from 400m to 250m
Thank you for reading
All thoughts, discussion, and flames are welcome.
|
Telinturco
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:03:00 -
[5]
Epic Win.
That is all.
|
Zhilia Mann
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:23:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Telinturco
Epic Win.
That is all.
Ja, this looks good in theory. I'd have to run some of those numbers to check details, but I think the logic is solid.
(As is the format. Which I thank you for.) |
Sean Faust
Gallente
Point of No Return
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:27:00 -
[7]
For a long time now this cool-but-useful-in-theory-only ship class has been in need of massive changes, and while the bomber changes from 2 years ago when they buffed the other 3 bombers so that they could compete with the manticore were a step in the right direction, it was only the beginning of what changes NEEDED to happen.
If CCP doesn't make the changes this man proposed, then they must be smoking something that they need to share. That is all. |
Major Deviant
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:28:00 -
[8]
Nice post, CCP have indeed said they are having a look at the SBs, fingers crossed they will actually do something about it in the coming expansion.
One thing I would like to see is a total rethink/redesign on the bombs. I fly 100% in Empire space (90% lowsec), so a weapon system than can only be used in nullsec is quite useless to me. I would prefer a system similar to space fighter sims of the past (Wing Commander for example) like a slow locking/flying uber torpedo for use against battleship class ships and above as well as structures (POSes, FW bunkers etc).
|
achoura
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:28:00 -
[9]
Personally i'm finding it amusing that you've gone to the effort and time to write out and plan all that, then put it in the wrong forum section.
gj.
***The EVE servers and their patches*** |
Dau Imperius
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: achoura
Personally i'm finding it amusing that you've gone to the effort and time to write out and plan all that, then put it in the wrong forum section.
gj.
This is ships and modules isn't it? Looks like he's posting about wait for it...
...almost...
...ships and modules. It couldgo here or in the other forum area.
Right, I don't know how the numbers work out (maths ugh). But you've brought up a really good poinn on bombers. I've always invisioned them being more like the old brids of prey. Sneak (full cloak), do a quick one shot that's devastating, and get the hell out of dodge or be blown to bits. You've summed it all up at least.
|
Arvald
Caldari
Vengeance of the Fallen
CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 21:39:00 -
[11]
Hi my name is arvald and i approve of this thread (and want to make sweet sweet love to the op) |
Telinturco
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:12:00 -
[12]
 Um, can you fix Black Ops now?
Please? |
SpaceBall 7
Heaven's Avatars
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Telinturco
Um, can you fix Black Ops now?
Please?
This.
And good job btw...if this happens i might undock my sb for the first time in a year
|
baltec1
R.U.S.T.
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:22:00 -
[14]
Edited by: baltec1 on 21/01/2009 23:23:01
Edited by: baltec1 on 21/01/2009 23:22:44
The 100% damage bonus would be in the shape of, for example, 100% damage bonus to EM cruise for the purifier at level V? Or all damage types for all 4 races?
If the first then I want the devs to do this asap!
|
H Lecter
Gallente
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:25:00 -
[15]
One word - AWESOME!
CCP, please realize the proposed changes asap and someone give the OP a cookie!
Maybe move the thread to Features and Ideas?
My opinion is purely personal and not related to my alliance |
Telinturco
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:27:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Telinturco on 21/01/2009 23:29:19
Edited by: Telinturco on 21/01/2009 23:28:23
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 21/01/2009 23:23:01
Edited by: baltec1 on 21/01/2009 23:22:44
The 100% damage bonus would be in the shape of, for example, 100% damage bonus to EM cruise for the purifier at level V? Or all damage types for all 4 races?
If the first then I want the devs to do this asap!
Good point. Making the damage bonus type-specific would help give each ship a little variety.
As well as keep them from being massively overpowered from the outset. A 20% (EM/THER/EXP/KIN) Cruise Missile Damage bonus per level would be appropriate.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:31:00 -
[17]
Two changes fix the class
1 Allow Covert Ops cloaks.
2 Make bombs dangerous to the target.
If you think corp is different than a guild or clan you have some insecurity issues.
|
Javelin6
Minmatar
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:45:00 -
[18]
Glorious! |
Solomunio Kzenig
Amarr
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 00:50:00 -
[19]
I approve of this product and/or service.
Serioulsy SB's right now are badly broken, I'd love to see them get the changes proposed by the OP.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:07:00 -
[20]
Love it, love everything about it.
Given the choice, I'd take the Covops Cloak over the speed bonus but faster cloaked velocity would be welcome.
I'd miss the ass-clenching tension of watching several inties buzz around trying to find me, getting as close as 3km on occasion, then failing. Actually no I wouldn't miss that at all since I'll be too busy several systems away blowing something up. |
Neyro7830
Gallente
Axxeon
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:19:00 -
[21]
OP KNOWS.
He just KNOWS. <3
Oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer |
Seth Avaar
Minmatar
Free Space Initiative
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:35:00 -
[22]
/signed... <3 |
Eternum Praetorian
Tupperware Party
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:52:00 -
[23]
ummm.... Wow....
Signed 
|
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 02:12:00 -
[24]
More Starlancer needed. |
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 02:17:00 -
[25]
Also...
Do they award Nobel Prizes for Eve?
They should start since we have a winner.
Who needs to know about the Human Genome anyway?
|
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 02:28:00 -
[26]
I can't stop posting!
It's brilliant and has numbers to back it up. Bombers would be actually worth using in a meaningful sense. WIN Eagles would have a role (beyond their current very very niche role) since they could near insta-lock and insta-pop a bomber.
Just too awesome. CCP should like, buy you or something.
Now all you have left to magifix is:
Black Ops
AFs
CSs
Falcons (?)
ECCM (?)
Pilgrim
GO!
 |
Susi Queue
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 02:56:00 -
[27]
Enthusiastically
/signed.
I'd love to undock my Manticore again someday, and this would do it.
|
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 03:04:00 -
[28]
I had to come and read the post again.
Win.
sXe |
SpaceBall 7
Heaven's Avatars
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 03:33:00 -
[29]
B
u
m
p
Oh and, i agree with warrio =P Someone! PAY THIS MAN! |
Cassius Magistro
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 03:54:00 -
[30]
CCP pay this man and obey his word.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |