Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Phoebe] Stealth Bombers

First post First post First post
Author
#741 - 2014-10-24 16:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Calvyr Travonis
Mark Hadden wrote:
I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well.
isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.


I've played the game for 2.5 years and have never had to deal with cloaky ships decloaking each other. I don't know if I'd say 2+ years of a mechanic in a game can be considered young. There was a time that there was no such thing as a skill queue; training your next skill couldn't be started until the previous skill's training was finished. People were able to manage that, too. Shall we eliminate the skill queue as well? And if you think about it, over the course of human civilization, computers, antibiotics and even automated industry are all extremely young and we survived alright before those things came along; would you like to go back to a time before any of those things existed? Just because people got by with things the way they used to be, doesn't make it any better, and it doesn't mean that they should ever go back to the way it was before things changed.
#742 - 2014-10-24 16:33:07 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
I wouldn't even mind it if the bombs were so weak you could only launch one or two at a time. To me it seems much more balanced if it would required a steady stream of bomb volleys to attack a large fleet instead of all in one go. I'm sure the hamsters would rejoice at not having to calculate so much AOE at the same time either.


I actually really like this idea. The "stealth" in "stealth bomber" indicates to me, that they're intended to be a strategic weapon. The idea of multiple waves of 2-3 bombers, dropping out of warp and decloaking from several different angles seems a lot more interesting and compelling gameplay to me than 8 bombers essentially carpet bombing a fleet. Sure, you could have all of your bombers warp in from the same spot in waves, but that's going to make defence easier because after the first wave, they'll know where you're coming from. If you come from different sides, they won't know where to expect you next. Also, it gives the defending fleet a little more opportunity to set up for subsequent waves, avoiding being completely wiped out by a single strike.
Minmatar Republic
#743 - 2014-10-24 16:36:38 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well.
isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.



It seems You have not played the game for long.. ships did not decloak other cloacked ships for most part of eve history.. than for a SHORT period, I think about 3 years they decloacked... THEN they FIXED that, while admiting it was a mistake and now they are backtracking...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

#744 - 2014-10-24 18:03:02 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

This just sounds like the typical "the game is too hard, please make it easier so I don't have to adapt" tears. I'm not saying that the bombers should stay as they are. I'm just saying that the mass changes and the cloak changes are not the way to balance it. Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

They are not an obstacle why would they all I'll do is just keep dropping slowcats and T3 fleets. You just wont have any diversity in the game in terms of fleet doctrines. Making entire ship class's obsolete is not really something I'd call balanced. Bombers used to decloak each other for ages and people still bomb'd adapt or die buddy.

Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

I think you misunderstood the between fleet and aggressor part. By aggressor I meant the bombers, not the enemy DPS ships.


Please just stop this hurts position ships against something you cant see coming just stop already.. its pretty obvious that you're a puppy who's never fc'd anything at this point.


So, what is your suggestion then? All I keep seeing is tears and cries that you can't use anything besides slowcats (which will be interesting to see you deploying after phoebe) and T3s.
#745 - 2014-10-24 18:15:49 UTC
This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?

Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).

This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted.
#746 - 2014-10-24 18:46:52 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
This might be sidetracking a little bit but since the main subject is how bombers are so OP and kill everything below Titan class (exaggeration intended), why not provide more tools for the fleets to counter the bomber menace instead of just trying to kill the bomber concept?

Create deployable units similar to the cyno inhibitors but that the sole purpose is to prematurely detonate any bombs within x km from it (50k for instance) kind of a sentry laser detonator of sorts. This way, less moveable fleets can protect themselves from bombing (as long as the bomb detonator is still alive).

This would help fleets to protect exposed flanks from bombing and add another tactical layer to the bombing run, which would need to either have the bomb detonators eliminated or position themselves in a way that the bombs wouldn't get intercepted.


This is an interesting idea, but the problem that I see with it is that it then just becomes another mandatory part of any fleet doctrine. That's not a problem by itself, but on the surface, this looks extremely OP simply because it's an automated defence that completely negates bombers. I'm sure that there could be some restrictions and cooldowns associated with this type of unit that would make it viable though.

Personally, I like the idea of making this type of defence be an actual fleet role. Something for destroyers, or even cruisers to handle. There have been several suggestions in this thread and in other locations, that this could be a great way to make defender missiles viable again, if they affected bombs. That way, it's something where somebody has to actively do something, rather than simply deploying a module, and it could be something that fairly low SP pilots could do and add a significant contribution to the fleet.
Flaming Forum Spammer
#747 - 2014-10-26 02:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Flaming Forum Spammer
the ability to shoot a freaking bomb please. Dessies want some more range action. bombs shot down should still do some AoE damage, but like 20% -they are bombs after all.


Balance Cloakies

Have cloaking devices consume Liquid Ozone to truly cloak a ship, 1 unit per 20 minutes or something. If no ozone, cloak reduces speed/lockrange/scanres by 50%, reduces sig radius by 90% so it gives off screwy interference, and uses capacitor rapidly.

please -let covert ships not decloak within 5km of each other
O.U.Z.O. Alliance
#748 - 2014-10-26 03:21:33 UTC
Flaming Forum Spammer wrote:
the ability to shoot a freaking bomb please. Dessies want some more range action. bombs shot down should still do some AoE damage, but like 20% -they are bombs after all.


Balance Cloakies

Have cloaking devices consume Liquid Ozone to truly cloak a ship, 1 unit per 20 minutes or something. If no ozone, cloak reduces speed/lockrange/scanres by 50%, reduces sig radius by 90% so it gives off screwy interference, and uses capacitor rapidly.

please -let covert ships not decloak within 5km of each other


Noes

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

#749 - 2014-10-26 03:23:55 UTC
AOE has always gone the way of the dumpster. Bombs will be no different, as long as they scale so perfectly.

cloaks too.
#750 - 2014-10-26 12:13:39 UTC
LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

Jonah Bridges
#751 - 2014-10-26 15:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Bridges
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:

Specially not the cloak changes since they destroy all non multiboxed automated cloaky fleets in the game, not just bombers. Keep that in mind and suggest constructive changes that allow the different playing styles (be it cloaky or non cloaky) to exist and be something more than a frustrating exercise, don't just cry for the removal of your obstacles from game.

I guess you havent played the game for too long? Cloakies not decloaking each other is a pretty young mechanic and prior that ships decloaked each other and yet people did bombing and they did well.
isbotter is basically a separate issue on its own (which indeed capitalize from bombers at most) and should be generally prohibited by CCP, nevertheless bombing is too easy right now even if you consider player, non-isbotted fleets. A little more preparation for a bombing run than "warp to dude xy, warp down to targets, drop bomb, warp off" is a good thing.



It seems You have not played the game for long.. ships did not decloak other cloacked ships for most part of eve history.. than for a SHORT period, I think about 3 years they decloacked... THEN they FIXED that, while admiting it was a mistake and now they are backtracking...




I would have to agree with Kagura Nikon, I began bombing in fleets when bombers could decloak each other, it would be impossible to return cyno back to hisec after a hotdrop, have to warp to range then burn toward the BLOPS an kill ur afterburner so that you didnt produce a larger sig radius an he had to use more fuel on you. FC would complain. then they made it better where it didnt matter where all the bombers were because you were all part of a fleet, this is a sci fi game an your taking part in a covert ops fleet, you'd think there'd be some fluff about how each pilot links their signitures together and then synchonizes them or something so that they would decloak each other....?
I suppose that we shall see if these new changes are favoured or not, I do have to mention though that a stealth bombers tank is its cloak, sure you can put on a MSE or something, but to truly stand up to any other ship class, a bomber must have a cloak, an now that tank has been nerfed

oh %$#@ it

The Initiative.
#752 - 2014-10-26 15:03:00 UTC
Why not give the decloak-problem and increased signature to the bomb launcher as a module?
That way bombers can still be used for other stuff and force recons would still be used after patch.
#753 - 2014-10-26 17:53:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make it easier for fleets to counter bombers (whether the bombers are isboxed or not) and to make organization of characters valuable again for bombing. Organization of pilots is made easier in a lot of ways with isboxer, but that has always been true and isn't some new phenomenon coming from these changes.

We'll be watching these changes very carefully on SISI, and if this hits bombers too hard we can easily make adjustments. We do not want to "headshot" bombers, and we don't currently believe that these changes make them unviable.

I think some people came into this thread expecting it to be something completely different, and are therefore disappointed.

If you want to discuss our policies surrounding isboxer that is fine, but there are other threads for that.


So you dont want un-viable but are content with making them garbage, great.......
#754 - 2014-10-26 17:54:00 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..



So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship.
#755 - 2014-10-26 19:02:07 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..



So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship.

What about.. ships with bomb launchers fitted decloak other ships with bomb launchers fitted

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

#756 - 2014-10-26 23:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
LOL...the thread has been derailed to one single thought now and everyone echoing it, bombs is the main reason of we don't fly many viable doctrine ships/fits in nullsec..amusing..



So instead of nerfing the weapon, they nerf the crap out of the ship.

What about.. ships with bomb launchers fitted decloak other ships with bomb launchers fitted





That is actually a really good idea.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#757 - 2014-10-27 13:22:22 UTC
Previously I said ISBoxing bombers wasn't a significant problem.

https://zkillboard.com/br/12382/

I may have been mistaken.

http://evewho.com/corp/Nullbear+Tear+Extractors

Nothing but ISBoxing. 1 player. 33 accounts.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Spaceship Bebop
#758 - 2014-10-27 15:58:15 UTC
I see that the Nemesis for one will get a Hull Buffer tank in the region of a tristan and overall a bigger buffer, will we see them used as cloaked tackle now with zero delay a hull tank of ~7k and scram/web/AB ?

Shield Manticore looks stronk as well Lol
Mercenary Coalition
#759 - 2014-10-27 16:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Soldarius wrote:
Previously I said ISBoxing bombers wasn't a significant problem.

https://zkillboard.com/br/12382/

I may have been mistaken.

http://evewho.com/corp/Nullbear+Tear+Extractors

Nothing but ISBoxing. 1 player. 33 accounts.

lol at the rorq loot

E: I'm not really seeing the problem on this one. it seems like something a regular gang of bombers could pull off themselves. Th bombers only killed a rorqual. Terrible fit (imo) at that.

E2: that being said thisis probably a more reasonable example.
The Volition Cult
#760 - 2014-10-27 19:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sbrodor
i hope fozzie u can reconsider some point of this huge nerf. Let us view each other to take position (and lore compatible and acceptable) when clocked. 12 seconds, smart bomb, mass decloacking, align time, signature (lock time and being alphaed) is a class destruction even more with new t3 dessie!!!!

There is another big problem. Actual wave is done by 3 void and 7 normal bomb. If u lower HP the void make a lot of damage to normal bomb and cannot sustain a full wave with void inside.

Is possible lower the damage of void bomb compatible with reduction of hp of bombs so we can keep the void strike in same wave of damage?

void go for 8 seconds too? versus the new 12 second of normal nerfed bombs?

-we did over 14k kills in bomber, safe bomber bar corp!!! -
Forum Jump