EVE Search - Remove the Covert Ops Cloak from Stealth Bombers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Remove the Covert Ops Cloak from Stealth Bombers

» 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)
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 280	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:25:00 - [1] - Quote Null security combat is ruled by a handful of ever present threats. You are at constant risk of being hot-dropped, pounced by a larger force at the other end of a stargate, and, prominently, of having your entire fleet annihilated by a bombing run at an inopportune moment. It is the prospect of being destroyed by an invisible hoard of highly maneuverable, and most of the time, effectively indestructible frigates that leads me to believe that bombers have become too powerful for the game's own good. Operations in nullsec are consistently operating under the imminent prospect of getting bombed, and must seek to mitigate the situation accordingly - a tactical reality that I don't find to be healthy. I believe that bombers could be made a little less overwhelming by reducing their maneuvering capabilities. It is the ability to position the stealth bomber in system with impunity (especially now that cloaked ships can't decloak each other) that really makes the opportunistic bombing run such a threatening prospect. When the only recourse another fleet has is to narrow their options just to reduce the threat posed by bombers, the depth of the strategic landscape suffers, and other, less savory strategies, such as massing capital ships, come into greater prominence. To alleviate the tension that bombers have created, the bomber should have to warp without the protection of a cloaking device. A window of exposure forces more consideration in their deployment - offering their victims a better opportunity to react twithout eliminating their flavor of gameplay altogether. However, to compensate, the bombers would need a significant cloaked velocity bonus, comparable to the Black Ops Battleship. I believe that this change would broaden the strategic tapestry of nullsec, and would ultimately be a net benefit to the game.
Swiftstrike1 Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black 407	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:27:00 - [2] - Quote Didn't read the post, only the title. No. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 115	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:34:00 - [3] - Quote Come on, even I do think that bombers are fine.. Make them exposed to enemy fire before they can launch their bombs would defeat their purpose eintirely.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 280	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:41:00 - [4] - Quote Gimme more Cynos wrote: Come on, even I do think that bombers are fine.. Make them exposed to enemy fire before they can launch their bombs would defeat their purpose eintirely. That is not inherent to this change; the only difference would be that a bomber couldn't warp without being at least briefly decloaked. On grid maneuvers could still be performed while wholly invisible, including positioning for the bombing run.
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 2220	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:51:00 - [5] - Quote Remove the stealth from stealth bombers you mean? Remove literally the only protection they have? Make them entirely unable to do their job, that is, hit and run attacks on fleets of larger ships?
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 115	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:56:00 - [6] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Gimme more Cynos wrote: Come on, even I do think that bombers are fine.. Make them exposed to enemy fire before they can launch their bombs would defeat their purpose eintirely. That is not inherent to this change; the only difference would be that a bomber couldn't warp without being at least briefly decloaked. On grid maneuvers could still be performed while wholly invisible, including positioning for the bombing run. Allright allright, I stop feeding the troll.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 280	Posted - 2014.01.12 13:57:00 - [7] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Remove the stealth from stealth bombers you mean? Remove literally the only protection they have? Make them entirely unable to do their job, that is, hit and run attacks on fleets of larger ships? Lest we forget, Stealth Bombers originally could not use covert ops cloaking devices. The only thing the stealth bomber would lose is the ability to arrive and depart in secret. I do not believe this capability is fundamentally necessary for the stealth bomber to successfully perform its mission. If the stealth bomber can move faster while cloaked, has a small re-cloaking and re-targeting delay, and keeps its other capabilities, it will remain a powerful weapons platform.
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 115	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:00:00 - [8] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Remove the stealth from stealth bombers you mean? Remove literally the only protection they have? Make them entirely unable to do their job, that is, hit and run attacks on fleets of larger ships? If the stealth bomber can move faster while cloaked, has a small re-cloaking and re-targeting delay, and keeps its other capabilities, it will remain a powerful weapons platform. You mean, untill the opposing force just warps away, yes?
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 280	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:03:00 - [9] - Quote Gimme more Cynos wrote: You mean, untill the opposing force just warps away, yes? You mean what the opposing force does as soon as the bombs go out, assuming its in their power to do so? It's not the most dramatic change from the status quo. What it does afford is a reaction window, while creating moments of opportunity for reaction that don't involve an immediately encroaching bunch of bombs.
Mag's the united SCUM. 16447	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:08:00 - [10] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: The only thing the stealth bomber would lose is the ability to arrive and depart in secret. I do not believe this capability is fundamentally necessary for the stealth bomber to successfully perform its mission. You mean perform in it's role as a *stealth* bomber. You are wrong of course, that's why the stealth was added. As they were sub-par for their role previously. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Wesley Otsdarva Asuratech Industrial Corp Brothers Of The Dark Sun 5	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:11:00 - [11] - Quote The bomber can also be insta locked and unable to cloak. Effectively making the bomber useless. Stealth ships are meant to make you afraid. Death that you can't even see. It also helps that you need a small fleet of them to actually screw something over. Hint, if theres a neut in system, you are never safe. Welcome to New Eden.
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 115	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:17:00 - [12] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Gimme more Cynos wrote: You mean, untill the opposing force just warps away, yes? You mean what the opposing force does as soon as the bombs go out, assuming its in their power to do so? It's not the most dramatic change from the status quo. What it does afford is a reaction window, while creating moments of opportunity for reaction that don't involve an immediately encroaching bunch of bombs. it wouldn't create moments, it would create AGES dude.. If I see a bunch of SB's landing 50Km away, I'm at warp before they can lock up, or I would lock them before they can cloak. Are you living behind a brick wall that you need an AFK coffee and bio-break to react as someone lands on grid? Seriously?
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 2220	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:23:00 - [13] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Remove the stealth from stealth bombers you mean? Remove literally the only protection they have? Make them entirely unable to do their job, that is, hit and run attacks on fleets of larger ships? Lest we forget, Stealth Bombers originally could not use covert ops cloaking devices. The only thing the stealth bomber would lose is the ability to arrive and depart in secret. I do not believe this capability is fundamentally necessary for the stealth bomber to successfully perform its mission. If the stealth bomber can move faster while cloaked, has a small re-cloaking and re-targeting delay, and keeps its other capabilities, it will remain a powerful weapons platform. They also, if I remember rightly, could use cruise missiles to smash things from 150KM out. A bunch of bombers land on grid, they can't cloak because they're too close to one another, they die to the fleet's instacanes/interceptors. I assume that's your vision of where bombers should be?
Cheng Musana Purple Space Ponys AAA Citizens 46	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:51:00 - [14] - Quote this sounds just as legit as a magical flying spacepig.
FT Diomedes The Graduates RAZOR Alliance 281	Posted - 2014.01.12 15:15:00 - [15] - Quote No. Stealth bombers are currently effective and fun for many people. This change would eviscerate them.
Joe Boirele Wrath of Shadows 3	Posted - 2014.01.12 17:17:00 - [16] - Quote There's a reason stealth bombers are called Stealth bombers. This is my Myrmidon. -áThere are many like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my Myrmidon is nothing. -áWithout my Myrmidon I am nothing. Remember, accidents hurt science!
Dolorous Tremmens The Scope Gallente Federation 55	Posted - 2014.01.12 17:40:00 - [17] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Lest we forget, Stealth Bombers originally could not use covert ops cloaking devices. The only thing the stealth bomber would lose is the ability to arrive and depart in secret. I do not believe this capability is fundamentally necessary for the stealth bomber to successfully perform its mission. If the stealth bomber can move faster while cloaked, has a small re-cloaking and re-targeting delay, and keeps its other capabilities, it will remain a powerful weapons platform. And titans had AOE DD's, railguns sucked, Jamming was even more powerful and nano'd ships could do 13k/s+ Ah the good old days. We've moved forward and ships are now much better defined in their roles, much more able to play their roles and the SB is one of the best examples. Has to get in close, be sneaky, align, uncloak drop bomb, and attempt to get away. The tank is possibly the lightest in the game, and if the targets have a sebo'd craft smaller than a BS, chances are your SB or a teammate's is going down that round. Stealth really is the only defense that stealth bombers have. And if you know they're there, they're not really stealthed are they? the way you want it, they have to warp into the start point, then cloak while the enemy pretends it didn't see the red on overview, and powers up all the sensor boosters and ready guns. SB won't get a bomb off, it will uncloak and die. Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Janna Windforce EVE University Ivy League 52	Posted - 2014.01.12 19:03:00 - [18] - Quote No, thanks. Element of surprise is all the bombers have. You have 10s to react. Seems fair to me.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 281	Posted - 2014.01.12 22:35:00 - [19] - Quote Bombs are a terrible game mechanic. They are not a threat until they are, their actual window of opportunity is seconds long, and the only thing people can do in response to them is disengage or get hammered. Game mechanics should encourage people to get in fights and stick with them as long as they believe they can get something done, not leave people with the immediate choice to abandon the fight or die. By design, stealth bombers only leave the players in the target area the option to bail. Anyone around them with a fast locking time can point them and shoot their ship out from under them, sure, but the stealth bomber remains a relatively small loss. Meanwhile, the damage they can do to opposing fleets have made many doctrines untenable, and driven the current metagame towards skirmish fleets with small signature radius, and brick fleets. Ever wonder why N3 has moved to capital ship doctrines? When they try other things, they die in a fire; they don't have the numbers to back up any gained experience. Jump drives, huge buffer tanks, flexibility in combat, and effective immunity to bombing runs has driven just about everyone who can't push a numbers advantage in a nullsec fight into capitals; they have no other choice, as sub-capitals don't have the staying power to last against, or out-maneuver, a numerically superior force. Bombs contribute heavily to this problem, which, by design, immediately destroy any opportunity an opposing fleet has to have "fun" - they immediately lose their power to shoot back. Bombs have no utility value except in immediately destroying significant portions of an opposing fleet. It's a strategically valuable capability, but mass destruction without recourse is a dis-empowering design. Fundamentally, a bombing run is no fun for the same reason the AOE doomsday is no fun. Between fight or flight, barring a few choices that are the subject of much ire, the only choice is flight - and that's bad.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 627	Posted - 2014.01.12 23:23:00 - [20] - Quote perhaps its the strength of the bombs and or the bonus to bombs damage that SB's get that is the main issue and perhaps the tracking of bombs also .. mainly its explosion radius.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Polarized. 1281	Posted - 2014.01.12 23:28:00 - [21] - Quote OMG face palm... idk why some people bother +1
buyer Bedala Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 9	Posted - 2014.01.12 23:51:00 - [22] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Gimme more Cynos wrote: Come on, even I do think that bombers are fine.. Make them exposed to enemy fire before they can launch their bombs would defeat their purpose eintirely. That is not inherent to this change; the only difference would be that a bomber couldn't warp without being at least briefly decloaked. On grid maneuvers could still be performed while wholly invisible, including positioning for the bombing run. Regular cloaks have a 10 second timer between decloaking and locking a target.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 281	Posted - 2014.01.13 00:26:00 - [23] - Quote buyer Bedala wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Gimme more Cynos wrote: Come on, even I do think that bombers are fine.. Make them exposed to enemy fire before they can launch their bombs would defeat their purpose eintirely. That is not inherent to this change; the only difference would be that a bomber couldn't warp without being at least briefly decloaked. On grid maneuvers could still be performed while wholly invisible, including positioning for the bombing run. Regular cloaks have a 10 second timer between decloaking and locking a target. Indeed, hence the suggestion of a decloak timer delay bonus. The only target for the change is warping while cloaked; the stealth bomber should be bonused in the use of regular cloaking devices accordingly.
Dolorous Tremmens The Scope Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2014.01.13 00:50:00 - [24] - Quote No, Luddites are wrong and should just be ignored. This is a Luddite topic. Surprise and stealth are the SB's only survival tool, and you're trying to take surprise away. Oh any ship can be stealthed, but the SB is in the Cov-ops section of the game, so it does indeed merit and require the cov-ops cloak. It would be disgusting to see it otherwise, Everyone would know where they are by where they warped to. It would be like walking into a bank with a gun in your hand, waiting till you had been seen by all and recorded, then putting on a mask, and hiding the gun and proceeding to rob the bank. Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 281	Posted - 2014.01.13 00:55:00 - [25] - Quote Dolorous Tremmens wrote: No, Luddites are wrong and should just be ignored. This is a Luddite topic. Surprise and stealth are the SB's only survival tool, and you're trying to take surprise away. Oh any ship can be stealthed, but the SB is in the Cov-ops section of the game, so it does indeed merit and require the cov-ops cloak. It would be disgusting to see it otherwise, Everyone would know where they are by where they warped to. It would be like walking into a bank with a gun in your hand, waiting till you had been seen by all and recorded, then putting on a mask, and hiding the gun and proceeding to rob the bank. When did covert jump portal generators on black ops battleships cease to exist? I don't buy the argument that the stealth bomber has no utility if it can't warp while cloaked. It maintains a powerful weapons capability, and still holds the only truly effective AOE weapon available at this time.
Dolorous Tremmens The Scope Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2014.01.13 01:08:00 - [26] - Quote Evelgrivion wrote: Dolorous Tremmens wrote: No, Luddites are wrong and should just be ignored. This is a Luddite topic. Surprise and stealth are the SB's only survival tool, and you're trying to take surprise away. Oh any ship can be stealthed, but the SB is in the Cov-ops section of the game, so it does indeed merit and require the cov-ops cloak. It would be disgusting to see it otherwise, Everyone would know where they are by where they warped to. It would be like walking into a bank with a gun in your hand, waiting till you had been seen by all and recorded, then putting on a mask, and hiding the gun and proceeding to rob the bank. When did covert jump portal generators on black ops battleships cease to exist? I don't buy the argument that the stealth bomber has no utility if it can't warp while cloaked. It maintains a powerful weapons capability, and still holds the only truly effective AOE weapon available at this time. there is also the surprise aspect. if you KNOW they're on grid with you and where they were, you can scatter appropriately. They're not just useful for bombing. they're used to scout and take out targets of opportunity, opportunities lost if they can see it coming. The jump portals are a red herring, and they're used for hotdrops, and not bombing. with bombing,you jump in remotely, not right on target. You warp at distance from target, remain cloaked and begin the approach. That last bit is negated if the see you warp in, and then cloak. I feel I have to explain the obvious since I am repeating myself. Have you even flown SB's? used a jump portal? been on a bombing run? Are you a forum alt, cause I don't see any of that on your KB. Seeing none of that, I have to conclude that this is a personal axe to grind, or just a soapbox to troll from. edit: It is an axe to grind. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1322882 Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 281	Posted - 2014.01.13 01:16:00 - [27] - Quote Dolorous Tremmens wrote: there is also the surprise aspect. if you KNOW they're on grid with you and where they were, you can scatter appropriately. They're not just useful for bombing. they're used to scout and take out targets of opportunity, opportunities lost if they can see it coming. The jump portals are a red herring, and they're used for hotdrops, and not bombing. with bombing,you jump in remotely, not right on target. You warp at distance from target, remain cloaked and begin the approach. That last bit is negated if the see you warp in, and then cloak. I feel I have to explain the obvious since I am repeating myself. Have you even flown SB's? used a jump portal? been on a bombing run? Are you a forum alt, cause I don't see any of that on your KB. Seeing none of that, I have to conclude that this is a personal axe to grind, or just a soapbox to troll from. You should look a little closer, because I can, have, and do use Black Ops Battleships for hot-drops, have used stealth bombers for bombing runs, and have flown them in their previous iterations. Bombers are part of a larger perceived problem, and the proposed change in this thread is mean to help alleviate some of that problem. Bombs are not a good game mechanic.
Sura Sadiva Entropic Tactical Crew 1022	Posted - 2014.01.13 01:28:00 - [28] - Quote A thread about removing stealth abilities from stealth bombers? And maybe also removing bombing abilities from stalth bombers cause is a bad mechanic?! Adding a 10 seconds cooldown to target after declocaking? Are you guys serious?
Evelgrivion Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder 281	Posted - 2014.01.13 01:29:00 - [29] - Quote Sura Sadiva wrote: A thread about removing stealth abilities from stealth bombers? And maybe also removing bombing abilities from stalth bombers cause is a bad mechanic?! Adding a 10 seconds cooldown to target after declocaking? Are you guys serious? I can see that you haven't actually read the discussion in this thread.
FT Diomedes The Graduates RAZOR Alliance 281	Posted - 2014.01.13 01:42:00 - [30] - Quote Perhaps the problem with bombers is... Oh wait, there is no problem with bombers. Comparing them to the old AOE doomsday is just absurd. CCP finally has an effective anti-blob weapon that still has a good counter (or ten).

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.