| 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.
|
|
|
Opertone
Caldari
Gladiators of Rage
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 04:12:00 -
[31]
stealth bombers - epic loss of POD
bomb timer needs to be shorter, 5 seconds maximum, else they are too easy to spot and avoid. Bombs have to be fired from longer distance, 30-35 km to ensure blast safety. In order to fire a bomb in a squad, bombers are forced to fit bomb specific tank and shield extenders so that the blast doesn't break the squad. Bomb max distance must be sufficient to warrant safety to squad members. Bombs need an easy way to aim, their targeting should be made simple.
Why can't stealth bombers lock targets while cloaked? Why? There is no theory behind it. When you decloak and spend 2.5 seconds locking so does your enemy. When you fire your weapon you are dead meat already.
Why do bombers have to sacrifice launcher to fit a bomb? Ideally Bomb launchers should not take missile hardpoint. Bombs are rather expensive and are not over used.
Why are stealth bombers extremely slow and clumsy? It doesn't help at all, the ship warps slower than a Battleship. Stealthbombers need to stay agile and maneuverable. In theory should be able to use afterburner while cloaked.
What sort of Medium slots is stealth bomber designed for? Electronic warfare? Point and tackle? Shield buffer? Scanners?
Stealth bombers would benefit greatly if they could actually scan the target while cloaked. Give stealth bombers ability to use ship scanner and cargo scanner in cloaked mode. Also slow down targeting (20 sec), so that only slow targets can be scanned, not turning stealth bomber into scout mobile.
Stealthbombers have to stay stealthy until they fire their weapons. Stealthbombers need to be able to warp cloaked at slow speed. Stealth bombers aren't recons or forces meant to intercept, they need to get in position slowly and take the right spot. Stealth bombers require warp cloaked ability of 0.5 AU per second.
Maximum required stealth bomber squad should be not more than 5, so that the ships can achieve maximum efficiency versus larger targets in groups of 5 pilots and less. DPS output of stealth bombers should be sufficient to destroy a HAC or a Battleship with the help of point Recon (Arazu) and covert cyno generators.
There are never going to be 20 bombers in one fleet.
And finally nerf local and let space be space.
|
Tyranis Var
SkillzKillz
United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:07:00 -
[32]
agree with OP
/signed
above guy should reread thread part on bombs  |
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:18:00 -
[33]
/signed
To the OP: Copy/Paste this information into the CSM forum. That way forumists can vote and possible move this up to CCPs attention. |
Opertone
Caldari
Gladiators of Rage
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:23:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Opertone on 22/01/2009 07:25:11
currently lvl 5 covert ops pilot can destroy enemy Recon, Interdictor, Interceptor and Cruiser with one bomb.
However he is guaranteed to lose his 30 mill ship and more likely his POD.
giving 250 m signature to bombs will be overpowering and cookie cutter. Smaller targets will be annihilated by bombs entirely unless they can outrun or escape the blast area.
Carrying more than 1 bomb is FFS not reasonable - the target will not be there, bombs work as surprise weapon, the enemy will not be surprised twice.
2 Bombs + Launcher are near the price of Stealth Bomber. Improved cloaking device II is half the price of stealth bomber. Fully t2 stealth bomber with standard setup and two bombs - 45 mill. 25 Mill SP clone with basic implants another 50 mill.
Flying stealth bombers as of now - pure death to the POD owner. Multiply by minimum effective squad size, 45 x 5 + 50 x 5 = 225 + 250, 475 mill of Corporate Failure.
Should you camp a gate with bomb squad, Heavy Interdictor jumps second, pops up a bubble. Stealth bombers had decloaked and launched bombs, slow bombs don't allow to cloak back, got stuck in the bubble, got locked popped and podded. For a price of heavy interdictor and his T2 Hac gang.
|
Elhina Novae
Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille
Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:47:00 -
[35]
If i could make love with words, it would be yours. |
Brego Tralowski
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:49:00 -
[36]
I have to say to the OP that I agreee with the majority of your post. It would be nice to 'fire and forget' cruise missiles.
By this I mean: Decloak - target and launch your missiles - recloak. Hitting the target and causing damge still. You would be cloaked from the target but your missiles would still connect.
Currently you can only do this tactic if your under around 40km from your target with a Passive targeter fixed so your not being locked as you lock your opponent.
My SB fleet always use this tactic when we go out, but a longer range for this method of fighting would be useful and so would increased missile flight speed.
I also agree that whilst I love my SB it's not exactly correct calliing it a 'Stealth Bomber' as I do not see that it fits the role correctly, every ship can cloak but it doesn't make it exactly stealthy in the true sense.
I would like to be able to warp cloacked this would be a real asset to the ship class, the element of surprise is a big factor in the use of this ship and something that should be used more to its effectiveness.
Alpha should also be addressed, being able to fire and forget and cause great damage would see more of these ships brought into battle.
It would be ashame to see this class of ship die out just because it simply doesn't do the job it's designed to do well enough. It has a role in a gang but it just doesn't seem to fill it well enough. Hopefully things will change and we can see this little ship being feared.
Or course the whole bomb issue also needs addressing, such as: Bomb costs, flight time, HPs, where they can be used plus other issues.
But I also think that they should remain paper thin and pretty much pointless to try and tank. Your only tank option should remain your cloaking device, Hence the need to address it's multitude of abilities revolving around this particular module. Flying these ships should be down to the poilots skill and battlefield awareness and not tanking modules.
Above all else these ships are great fun to fly and are great for harassing people, lets keep it that way!
I would like to thank the OP for putting this post together and taking the time to take a look at this little ship and trying to make it 'better' instead another 'Why are SBs rubbish?' thread.
Post signed by an avid SB lover. |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 07:54:00 -
[37]
OP + bomb launcher = general high slot item = win.
( and a bit of CPU pls )
|
Imaos
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 09:50:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Wannabehero
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.
As I mentioned it in many other threads on the stealth bomber subject: Giving the stealth bomber the cov ops cloak is too much. It will lead to much whine, because it lets you get in position and get aligned while your target has no chance to react until your squadron decloaks, locks, fires one volley enough to kill the ship and is in warp right just after the missiles leave ship. As you break the attempts to lock you start recloaking in flight.
This is simple with the current bombers if they could fit a cov ops cloak as they can fit 1-2 sensor booster for faster locking and can be close enough so the missiles will hit even if they enter warp/cloak.
As opposed to a falcon who is just an annoyance because he can't kill, but can be forced to warp out, you'll loose a ship on every pass of the bomber squad and can't do anything to them unless you can prevent them to enter warp again aka bubble yourself.
All other things are nice, but remember it is only a t2-frig so it should have its uses, but I really don't want it to become a fotm ship because it becomes too easy to use like a cloaked torp raven  .
Imaos |
Dictum Factum
Gemini Sun
Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 10:38:00 -
[39]
Far and away the best post I have seen regarding my favorite ship. |
Shadow18
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 11:09:00 -
[40]
Very nice post.
Put it in the Assembly Hall of the CSM as a proposal so we can all show our support and they can bring it up with CCP. |
|
|
Jasper Mieville
Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 11:26:00 -
[41]
/signed
Please no covOps cloak though, speed change would be enough.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 11:35:00 -
[42]
I don't realy know ... the OP does not go far enough I guess ...
The only suggestion I like is the cloak speed bonus change ... would be great ...
covops cloak would be too much.
a complete bomb redesign is needed. there should be dumb fire and homing bombs (first ones have larger damage potential and better range). also bombs should be autonomous, i.e. once they are fired, the state of the bomber (on grid, cloaked, in warp or even destroyed) does not influence the bomb.
bombs could be similar to small drones ... you can lock them and shoot them down. this would help with anti-bomb defenses. also defender missiles could take bombs as threats and target them. this lowers the effectivity of bombs so they could go lower in build cost and volume and more could be deployed per bomber.
--- SIG ---
CSM: your support is needed ! |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 11:54:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 22/01/2009 11:56:14
Covops cloak = targeting delay = not good.
The way it is now you might know the bomber is there or you might not, the important thing is that you don't know where the bomber is exactly and which ship it is after. You can't lock it until it chooses to show itself, and at that moment the missiles or bombs are already on the way. It has good chances to reposition itself afterwards by cloaking or warping. It is invulnerable to EW. It has the EW option itself. It can utilize cloaked positioning very well. On the operational level, it is quick and slippery. It works well in conjunction with other stealth ships. It has good damage and massive range, up to 230km are possible with the Manticore.
Bombs are a support weapon, not meant to kill ships on their own.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
Goldfrapp
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 12:23:00 -
[44]
/signed
Ive had a love affair wuth this ship since i started just dont get to use it much |
Thercon Jair
Minmatar
InQuest Ascension
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 12:53:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Imaos
Originally by: Wannabehero
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.
As I mentioned it in many other threads on the stealth bomber subject: Giving the stealth bomber the cov ops cloak is too much. It will lead to much whine, because it lets you get in position and get aligned while your target has no chance to react until your squadron decloaks, locks, fires one volley enough to kill the ship and is in warp right just after the missiles leave ship. As you break the attempts to lock you start recloaking in flight.
This is simple with the current bombers if they could fit a cov ops cloak as they can fit 1-2 sensor booster for faster locking and can be close enough so the missiles will hit even if they enter warp/cloak.
As opposed to a falcon who is just an annoyance because he can't kill, but can be forced to warp out, you'll loose a ship on every pass of the bomber squad and can't do anything to them unless you can prevent them to enter warp again aka bubble yourself.
All other things are nice, but remember it is only a t2-frig so it should have its uses, but I really don't want it to become a fotm ship because it becomes too easy to use like a cloaked torp raven .
Imaos
I suppose you have never noticed that, if you hit warp your missiles do connect with the target, but, they deal no damage. And there I do not mean that they don't deal damage when you are in warp. They deal no damage even if you are still aligning and still have the target locked. For some odd reason, turret ships deal damage for as long as you have a lock on the target, so you can still fire while your ship powers up the warp core and turns to warp out. |
ry ry
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 13:12:00 -
[46]
stealth bombers need an overhaul.
CCP should definitely take a look at them, possibly for an overhaul this summer.
|
Sonreir
Gallente
Band of Builders Inc.
Libera Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 13:16:00 -
[47]
Excellent post all around and I support this thread.
Anyone suppose I might get a forum ban if I report the thread? At least that way someone from CCP will look at it.
|
ry ry
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 13:24:00 -
[48]
Edited by: ry ry on 22/01/2009 13:24:54
Originally by: Sonreir
Excellent post all around and I support this thread.
Anyone suppose I might get a forum ban if I report the thread? At least that way someone from CCP will look at it.
reported.
incitement to infringe important rules put in place FOR OUR SAFETY. >:(
|
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 17:13:00 -
[49]
Totally Awesome
_______________
<Q> QUANT Hegemony
Item Database
|
Ione Hunt
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 17:31:00 -
[50]
SIGNED!!!
The only useful application of bombers right now are:
1) Make Falcons warp out.
2) Large SB fleets where everyone fires 1 salvo at 1 target to kill it instantly. You're small, mobile, and somewhat stealthy, and in a larger group they're deadly.
You can't fight a bigger target solo in them (which I'm fine with), but you should at least be able to destroy smaller targets such as frigs and inties. |
|
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:01:00 -
[51]
Edited by: P''uck on 22/01/2009 18:01:16
If I had the option to add certain bookmarks (or certain bookmarkfolders) to my overview, to actually be able to align and warp quickly, that would be enough to make it a fine ship for me.
edit: and giving them covert ops cloaks would make them waaaaaaay to strong. |
Impolite Andevil
The Shadow Knights
Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:06:00 -
[52]
This is exactly what this ship class needs. Please do this! |
Alanee'a Unakarakta
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:18:00 -
[53]
i vote for a better SB.
o7
.ala |
Number 86
Eat Ship and Die
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:29:00 -
[54]
/signed
sounds like the proper way to make the ship more useful
|
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:30:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Opertone
Why are stealth bombers extremely slow and clumsy? It doesn't help at all, the ship warps slower than a Battleship. Stealthbombers need to stay agile and maneuverable. In theory should be able to use afterburner while cloaked.
They have a cloaked velocity speed bonus for a reason...
also @op. /signed. (Even though pre-QR I'd disagree with the warping while cloaked idea)
CCP Atlas - The Short Story - "With Quantum Rise, we kind of messed up the performance of the EVE client."
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Celestial Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 19:41:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Ione Hunt
You can't fight a bigger target solo in them (which I'm fine with), but you should at least be able to destroy smaller targets such as frigs and inties.
tbh I'm on the opinion that SB's should fear only inties, frigs and destroyers.
make them anti-big stuff ffs.
otherwise, op's idea is good |
oMAKo
Gallente
Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 20:05:00 -
[57]
Awesome post!
CCP get this guy on payroll
Also fix Gallente |
August Guns
Minmatar
Infinite ISK.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 20:27:00 -
[58]
In general this looks good. I think a couple of the bomb changes are too powerful when all of them are combined. Still, on the whole its good.
August Guns |
JVol
Amarr
The IMorral MAjority
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 21:23:00 -
[59]
I dissagree with the cov ops cloak,too powerfull. 200% speed increase while cloaked would be better. I also think bomb speed and detonation timer is fine, I'd like to see the ACTUAL ROF on the launchers droped to 2 seconds with max skills. 60 seconds is just too long between launching with max skills.
ATm, bombs are difficult to use, but they arent 'broken', get enough on target and things blow up. I think most people who complain about them havent launched enough to have proper tactics down that insure detonation and damage on target. Between myself and my corp8s we have launched over 300 concussion. The price has been the biggest problem for most to really test with them. Even at jita prices of around 6m per bombs its not exactly 'cheap' to use them.
The setup on SB when using bombs is COMPLETELY different than a SB slingin missiles. This is the place most bombers go wrong before the even undock. With bomb setups you dont have to lock a target( so USE wcs ), you just align to it, you also HAVE to plan to take a few hits from fellow bombers. So your setup is all about low sig rad plus highest resists possible to the bomb. An I-stab or a shieled extender in your setup pretty much means you will die instantly. Your ship HAS to stay in one piece untill detionation,to detonate WITH damage to targets.
Align, uncloak, launch, gtfo to an ongrid SS, rinse , and repeat. You will need to have put yourself into a bubble or allowed 3 points to be placed on you to die using this tactic (manti w/ 2 wcs). I generally take at least one hit from fellow bombers somtimes 2-3hits @ 120-140 per blast with hi 80's res to bomb type.
|
Kurt Gergard
Caldari
Husarian Loyalists
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:04:00 -
[60]
How about you make stealth bombers use large artylery insted of cruise missiles? High instant alpha would solve a lot of the problems.
================================================
"No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke |
|
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr
The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:19:00 -
[61]
These changes seem good.
The alpha increase against large ships may make them a bit too powerful. Do you honestly think a single ship like this should be able to do that much damage to a large ship?
I fully endorse the alpha increase vs smaller targets (since this was nerfed with the missile nerf). I don't know if the alpha vs larger targets should be increased by so much though.
---
Put in space whales!
|
insidion
Caldari
Last of the Technocracy
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:50:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Ghoest
Two changes fix the class
1 Allow Covert Ops cloaks.
2 Make bombs dangerous to the target.
Would be nice if you could fit a full rack in the high slots appropriately. 3 cruise+cloak+offline bomb launcher seems kinda pointless to me given the already lengthy deployment times and other issues.
|
Isil Rahsen
IsilZheHa Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 00:23:00 -
[63]
/signed
CCP hire this man for balancing. |
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:42:00 -
[64]
Please provide address where I can have shipped a crate of Exotic Dancers. This balancing plan is just complete win.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PROPOSAL: Chaos Incarnate's Face
MMORPG: Many Men Online Role Playing Girls |
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 05:55:00 -
[65]
brilliant!!!
CCP Hire this man now!
|
Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 07:32:00 -
[66]
Hm. Some nice ideas, i do disagree on the extra dmg to interceptors. I see the stealth bombers as a torpedo boat kinda ship, thus its natural ability should be to alpha targets bigger than itself, while not beein at all effective against ships of its own size.
So while I approve of bigger alpha against larger targets, it shouldnt be able to even scratch an interceptor, nor do much dmg aganst any frig sized ship. |
Mephistophilis
Domination.
Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 13:59:00 -
[67]
Nice ideas!
Or just half the rof but double the volly dmg, like was mentioned t'other problem SB's have is the missile velocity. But you can;t have everything i guess
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 23:28:00 -
[68]
Thanks for the support and input so far everyone. I was on the fence as to whether I should post this thread or not.
Some further musings,
There are many ways the stealth bomber class can be improved, many many ways. I listed just a few ideas centered around improving their performance but trying to keep the role they currently enjoy (well, not really enjoy) but not overpower them in any particular department.
I would support many other ways to change the stealth bomber as well, such as a complete revamp of bomb mechanics (new types, better damage, better deployment, still detonate if cloaked/destroyed, ect.) or a revamp of the bomber primary weapon systems (such as small gang centered bomb launchers, cheaper and less powerful, ect.)
The OP was centered around keeping the current mechanics of the stealth bomber, and adressing the biggest needs I see with this class, which are
- Better stealth maneuverability
- Increased alpha damage potential (so when not bombing, the alpha damage of these ships should be the primary selling-point for bringing them along in a gang)
- Improvement to bomb deployment (a 5 to 8 man squad of bombers should be a serious consideration to include in any fleet)
I am aware CCP is looking into the performance of SB's. They may very well have their own solution at this time, and this thread may have been moot. If not, then I hope maybe we could help get their Dev and Balancer juices flowing a bit.
A couple points of clarification to the OP
Originally by: Wannabehero
The stealth bombers could, frankly, use an alpha boost against larger targets, but increasing their alpha too significantly against frigate (excluding interceptors)
What I mean by 'excluding interceptors' is that the stealth bomber could use more than just a minor boost to alpha damage against interceptors. While inties should still enjoy relatively high reduction against stealth bomber damage, the alpha from 3 heavily boosted cruise missiles should cause some notice from the interceptor pilot and force him to weigh the advantages of pursuing the bomber or sticking to his current target.
Originally by: Wannabehero
7. Reduce the signature radius of bombs from 400m to 250m
By this, I mean the actual signature of the bomb, not the explosion radius. Given the new proposed 10 second flight window and a 250m bomb an all battleship group would be hard pressed to target the bomb in time to shoot it down, placing another incentive to include higher scan res ships in flights (yay diversity)
Thanks everyone so far for your thoughts and comments |
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 13:44:00 -
[69]
I have, more than once touched myself at night to thoughts of this post.
sXe |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 18:32:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Warrio
I have, more than once touched myself at night to thoughts of this post.
thanks?
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
|
Galia Bonaventure
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 02:19:00 -
[71]
Excellent post
speed boost - great
alpha boost - great (could possibly be slightly more vs. small ships)
bomb boost - great, but imo doesn't go far enough, bigger boost would be nice. Lower cost per bomb by another third would be excellent (~ 4mil per bomb), since if bomb use became common, players would probably pay more attention to them and they would be shot down more.
Boost Stealth Bombers now!
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 22:13:00 -
[72]
Synonyms: bump (v)
hit
knock
bang
strike
wallop
bash
jolt
bounce
jounce
jar
jerk
bound
spring
collide
slam into
crash into
knock
smash into |
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 03:03:00 -
[73]
Superb post about a fun, fun ship class that is sadly broken and ignored, like a toy a week after Christmas.
Shame CCP doesn't worry about fixing the stuff they've broken.
OP should be given a job... CCP, you listening???
Z
|
Soporo
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 04:22:00 -
[74]
Nice post.
But just another casualty of the missile overnerf.
|
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 08:45:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Soporo
Nice post.
But just another casualty of the missile overnerf.
I would go further by saying bombers have been absolutely crippled by the missile nerf.
|
Taradis
Amarr
The Imperial Assassins
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 09:35:00 -
[76]
your my hero I like the proposed ideas FIX the DAMN SB's please 
|
Crime Zero
Black Thorne Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 16:57:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Wannabehero
... I am aware CCP is looking into the performance of SB's. They may very well have their own solution at this time, and this thread may have been moot. If not, then I hope maybe we could help get their Dev and Balancer juices flowing a bit.
I sure hope so as the OP expertly highlights the flaws with the current SB ships.
CCP, listen to this pilot! He knows SB's!
Excellent post!
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 17:38:00 -
[78]
I think is silly that a ship with cov ops in the name can't even fit a cov ops cloak.
May the EvE gods bless this thread.
|
Connner
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 19:27:00 -
[79]
/signed
I really want to see SB's usefull again. I liked mine before the missile nerf, but now its not so good. |
Cs3Sl2
Caldari
Quantum Singularity Initiative
Dark Nebula Galactic Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 19:40:00 -
[80]
Nice post Hope CCP read it and take some notes :) |
|
|
Dark Soldat
Caldari
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 20:05:00 -
[81]
EMPLOY THIS MAN CCP !!!!
/signed
/crosses fingers and hops his manticore will be viable again.
This thread turns me on. |
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 21:18:00 -
[82]
The thought of how much fun a SB would be if it was truly stealthy -able to warp cloaked- makes my pants tight.
I know Eve does not equal RL, but... ghah.
Imagine a nuclear sub, billions of dollar spent on propulsion and surface coatings to make it as invisible as possible, but only actually stealthy once it arrives where it's going. Or a stealth plane, a billion a pop, that flies into Baghdad completely un-stealthed and visible to radar. Kinda silly.
Z
|
Venduras
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 22:34:00 -
[83]
Two things that annoy me the most is the slow missile speed and Bombs being restricted to 0.0.
Having Bombs in high-sec should never happen (It would kill Jita, which is good...but then again...), but having them in low-sec shouldn't be a problem and allows for more diversity in their use.
The other problem is that (even if the target is tackled), the missiles can take so long to travel 100-150km at 5625m/s that half the time the target is either dead, primary got switched, or it managed to escape.
Another small thingy I would like to see added is the missiles continueing on their course after being fired.
They will still go poof on you if you warp out, but if you fire a few volleys and recloak, the missiles shouldn't just die out.
Although if you recloak when your missiles are 40km short of the target, they'll still hit, they should continue on regardless.
You would still have to decloak to fire them.
Aside from this, all Stealth Bombers need a CPU boost. You are lucky to be able to fit proper Sensor Booster/Damps with Malkuths and BCUs as it is, whereas the T2 Cruise Launchers and other varieties should be useable as well.
|
Nayomi
Minmatar
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 02:49:00 -
[84]
Signed
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:23:00 -
[85]
Absolutely not on the "should do more damage to intys"
I like flying bombers just fine, but swatting ceptors out of the sky is the absolute last role they should ever fill.
------------------
For Medicinal Use Only. |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:56:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Julius Romanus
Absolutely not on the "should do more damage to intys"
I like flying bombers just fine, but swatting ceptors out of the sky is the absolute last role they should ever fill.
The proposed cruise missile changes do not allow stealth bombers to swat ceptors out of the sky. In fact, using a speed fit crusader again as an example.
Crusader
72m sig, 6500 m/s speed.
New proposed volley damage (averaged estimation)
~270 damage
Number of volleys necessary to kill said ceptor
8 - 9
Time it would take a single stealth bomber to deal that many salvos with the proposed changes
3.8 - 4.3 minutes
Not overpowered vs. ceptors at all, simply boosting the alpha by about 2.5x, but the RoF is halved, keeping the DPS still very low.
The proposed missile bonus value changes were geared specifically to prevent massive boosts to the damage dealing potential of the stealth bomber vs. small targets, but slightly more of a boost vs. ceptors than T1 frigates and cruisers (compared to the damage dealt now percentage wise, not absolute damage values). The desire was to allow stealth bombers to gain a large alpha boost against large targets/heavily webbed or painted targets, but a substantially smaller alpha boost against small targets.
Actually, upon revisting the numbers, I think I may make some recalculations vs. smaller targets. I think some of my speed values may have been to conservative when writing the OP. Updates will be forthcoming. |
Venduras
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 11:43:00 -
[87]
Side question to above, how would the damage do against AB Assault Frigs?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |