Greedy Goblin

Friday, January 10, 2014

2800 DPS bombless bomber

Bombless bombers became a "thing" in the Fountain war. Their purpose is to grind down structures. They - like all stealth bombers - can take covops bridge, they can warp cloaked, they align out in seconds, so they are perfect to evade camps and drops by the defenders and cover great distance fast. They are also cheap, about 50M fitted. No wonder that CFC used them so extensively and with little losses.

However, their DPS is about 600 with reasonable skills, so you need like 14 of them to do the job of one dreadnought. "bombers grind, carriers rep" was the running joke in TEST, as the work of 14 grinding CFC bombless bombers could be undone by a single triage carrier. Bombless bombers demand extreme manpower while offer little fun. After all, they are just grinding structures. For this reason, those who aren't impoverished are doing this job in dreads and supers. Of course these unsupported capitals rely on perfect intel and execution. A mistake, an awoxer or a clever trap can end up in hundreds of billions of destroyed ISK on top of bad press.

Imagine that you could have both: the safety of bombless bombers and the firepower of the supercapitals. I'm now giving you just that. Ladies and gentleman, meet the 2800 DPS bombless bomber pilot!

First, you need a supercarrier, preferably a Nyx for the extra drone damage. Use a carrier, preferably Thanatos if you are cheap. That case the bombless bomber will "only" have 1000 DPS. Group your fighter-bombers or fighters in teams of 5. Launch the groups and right-click on them, chose delegate and pick a bombless bomber:

The fighters or fighter-bombers follow the bombless bomber even when it's cloaked. However if the carrier cloaks, they will be lost. You can see the assigned drones in a new category:

Warp the bombless bomber fleet to the structure and engage, enjoying the increased DPS:

In the meantime, the carrier or mothership can warp between safes or sit next to a friendly POS shield (can't be inside). So with this setup their DPS can be applied on the structure without having to be on grid. While a chain-warping or POS-sitting super can be killed, especially if there is an awoxer in the fleet, it's much harder than killing supers dumbly sitting on a structure. The fighters can be sent back to the carrier by both the carrier and the assigned pilot.

With 5 drone control units (no need for smartbomb and neut as they are warping around or sitting on a POS), a supercarrier can support 5, a carrier can support 3 subcaps. A Thanatos + 3 bomber setup does 50% more DPS than all 4 pilots in bombless bombers. A Nyx + 5 bomber setup does 4x!!! more damage than all 6 pilots in subcaps. I hope this will end the sorry situation of spending endless hours in bombless bombers.

Note: I couldn't test it with a super, so I can't guarantee that fighter-bombers work that way. But even if they doesn't, a Nyx with fighters + 5 bombless bombers have 66% more DPS than all of them in subcaps.

PS: special thanks to Ripard Teg.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bombers grind, carriers rep...

And if you commit triage carriers you take the bait, and you get counter dropped. Suddenly you are losing carriers.

I.e the reason not to do this is precisely the reason why dreads were not favored in the first place. TEST may have joked all they like, but the fact remains: Siege Fleet was effective at grinding TEST structures during the fountain war.

Also congratulations on discovering drone assist! good find!

Druur Monakh said...

Not a bad thought, but you still need to get the (super) carrier into the target system. And out again afterwards.

Anonymous said...

This is already used tactics for gatecamps.

The bomb less bomber is a symptom of risk reward imbalance in the game and silly sov design. If the best ship for imperial conquest is....a frigate, then something needs to be done.

Anonymous said...

Fighter-Bombers do NOT work this way by design. The SC must be on grid with them and manually engage them onto the target. However they will continue to engage a target even if you slowboat off the edge of the grid (at least they used to, it's been a while since that happened to me).

Your entire idea here is also predicated on a misunderstanding of how SiegeFleet, or 'bombless bombers', works. The whole idea is for them to evade retaliation and simply move to another location. Having to deal with safing up capitals and providing a cyno into the next system completely negates this utility, and in fact broadcasts to all of EVE where you're going next.

Your DPS numbers for bombers are also way off, a well skilled Stealth Bomber can dish out updwards of 750dps each with just torpedoes, and that's without implants or faction fittings.

Also, Drone Control Units are bad on combat capitals and you should feel bad for even suggesting their use here.

Gevlon said...

First anonymous: opportunity cost. If one dread is hitting the structure and 19 pilots are making ISK even with pathetic 50M/hour, the dread (carrier) just have to live 1:20 to pay for itself.

Fourth anonymous: it's NOT a combat capital, that's the very point. Also, how do you announce your next target? By the cyno? Because it's hard to open random cynos all over with 1 day old alts.

It just hides at the POS or warps around. Have you tested fighter-bombers or just assume? Also, link that 750DPS bombless bomber fit. I couldn't conjure up more than 500 DPS with everything being perfect. (usually it's not)

Babar said...

Let's say CFC had unlimited money, but couldn't field more supers and dreadnoughts than N3/PL because of lower average skillpoints for its pilots. Are bombless bombers still a bad choice?

And how would you grind sov with fighter-bombers if the system is cyno-jammed or you don't have any friendly pos'es there?

Purifier said...

Gevlon:
[Purifier - All V]

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Target Painter II (not necessary)
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I
(empty medslot)

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Torpedo Launcher II - Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II - Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Torpedo Launcher II - Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
(empty highslot)

Small Processor Overclocking Unit I
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I
(second one not needed if Targetpainter is not used)

732 DPS @ 5547 volley
no implants used.

Sure, "all V", but that's how fittings are compared usually.

You could even use it in highsec to reinforce those Goon-POCOs while it will be hard to get Nyx support in highsec :p
(beat them with their own weapons ^^)

Druur Monakh said...

@Gevlon "Also, link that 750DPS bombless bomber fit."

I didn't get 750 DPS, but taking the nature of the target into account, I got a 630 DPS Torpedo-Bomber fit (against omni-tanked targets) with just a few minutes of fiddling: BCS II, Torpedo Launcher IIs with Rage Torpedoes, Bay Loading Accelerator Rig, Warhead Calefaction Catalyst Rig. Adjust the ammunition for the target's resistances, and you can get more than that.

And Anonymous #3 states the point I was hinting at: Torpedo-Bombers have superior mobility over Capitals. Capitals /must/ use cynos, Torpedo-Bombers /can/.

Gevlon said...

@Babar: then they should use dreads with support fleet. The support would have defended them most times and they could replace them in the times the enemy won. But they couldn't risk it as they couldn't replace it.

@Anonymous: you are right. My EFT gives 680, but surely not 400. However in highsec I'd stick to blaster Taloses. More than twice the DPS and cheaper (Talos is a T1 hull with good insurance, bombers are T2 with bad)

Druur Monakh said...

@Gevlon "Also, how do you announce your next target?"

Mumble.

Sven Minnebo said...

A Hound or Purifier.

3x T2 Ballistic
3x T2 Torp
Ammo: Rage T2 (of correct damage type)
Rigs: 1 bay loading (+cpu rig for purifier)
Covops cloak

Since the fit can be broken as it avoids combat or just dies.

753 non heated non implant.
886 heated (covops hauler for repair paste and ammo)
999 heat + implant

Any sneeze on it its dead :P
Again fit can be broken its all about the DPS. Still none of this devalues Goblins suggestion the carrier still provides excellent dps increase. Ganking is always best done in T1 catas but if manpower is little they take T2 or other hulls. This allows smaller entity's to harm larger ones. Sure they get a bigger risk or loss. But the opposing party still gets hurt more (unless you failz) People need to realise blobbing is not the only way.

Gevlon said...

Stop posting bomber fits, the post is already changed!

Anonymous said...

the idea of using bombers is to have cheap ships do the job instead of committing a capital, or even worse a supercapital to it.

delegation is nothing new, and ever since it (luckily) got nerfed, not an i-win button anymore. Meaning you cant be within pos shields anymore, you have to commit your carrier to a position where it can be shot.

Fighterbombers can not be delegated. And committing a supercapital to shoot a structure, while there is no proper fleet to support it around is one of the most stupid ideas i've ever read.

Peter said...

A number of people have patiently explained to you the advantages bombless bombers offer when shooting structures.

You elected not to listen. Instead, you suggest deploying supercaps, with each supercap being supported by nothing but five poorly tanked bombers.

And it's true, fielding this staggeringly attractive target as a fleet would indeed kill structures slightly faster, right up until someone noticed what you'd been dumb enough to field.

Gevlon said...

@Peter: can you actually read? The point is that the super is NOT fielded. It never goes anywhere near the target structure. It either bounces between safes or sits outside of the POS shield.

Can it be killed? Sure. Everything in EVE can. Is it easy to kill? No. I've reading supercapital kill reports for years in EN24 and TMC and I've never seen a single "bounced between safes but still died". I've seen supers under POS shields die, but that always included an awoxer (or a spy getting the POS password)

Lucas Kell said...

@Gevlon
"can you actually read? The point is that the super is NOT fielded. It never goes anywhere near the target structure. It either bounces between safes or sits outside of the POS shield."
If it's in enemy territory, it's fielded. It really doesn't matter if you choose to bounce it or not, it's still fielded.
And people really don't tend to just bounce their supers around hoping for the best when they can be dropped. Consider that for the super supported fleet to be as effective as a 200 man bomber fleet, you'd still need to field 100 bombers and 20 supers. The difference is, you now need regular cyno pilots in place for both travel and bailout, and you still need a support fleet on standby in case you get jumped in transit, or one gets in trouble. You then also need a capital capable FC, rather than any trainee FC which can be used for bomber fleets.

The whole point of siegefleet is that you don't need all of that. It can be run by a junior FC, it can be quickly deployed or halted anywhere, can even be multiboxed as they are simple to control. It needs no support fleet, needs no real oversight, and if the absolute worst happens and the entire fleet wipes, it's an easily affordable loss, and can be entirely rebuilt within a day. Even a single super loss is more damaging than that. Most importantly though, it's entirely unappealing. Since they can scatter and cloak, then immediately bounce to alternate targets, most enemies will not want to form up to fight them, since they will spend most of their time traveling, and get few kills.

There's a lot of strategy that goes into these decisions that go well beyond DPS. It's understandable that you are not familiar with most of this as your exposure to null has been as a grunt in TEST, which isn't exactly a good learning experience. But I really don't see how you can be shown reason after reason and still boil it down to "You could get more DPS with X".

Peter said...

"@Peter: can you actually read?"

Indeed I can. I'll summarize your dumb plan for you:

Your plan is to deploy supers, supported only by stealth bombers. You plan to keep them safe by bouncing safes.

To repeat, you're going to have the ship class with the largest signature radius and slowest align time in the game bounce safes. They are going to do this for the entire duration of a structure grind.

It is your expectation that at no point during this grind will they be probed down and tackled.

Your plan is... not a good plan.

Good lord man, imagine yourself as the enemy FC for just a couple of minutes. Imagine how excited you'd be to discover that basically unsupported hostile supercaps were in your systems bouncing safes, and would be doing so for the next hour or two.

Gevlon said...

You can field them defensively too, killing hostile SBUs. Also, placing staging towers into the enemy territory isn't much to ask.

Of course the comment of Lucas is right: if the reason of using bombers is incompetence, than I bow out, yes, junior FC plus drunken pilots are better in simple bombers.

Lucas Kell said...

@Gevlon
"Of course the comment of Lucas is right: if the reason of using bombers is incompetence, than I bow out, yes, junior FC plus drunken pilots are better in simple bombers."
It has nothing to do with incompetence, it has to do with time, and the fact that you are unable to see that shows just how tiny your knowledge of null mechanics is.

To field a capital fleet takes more people than bombers, because while you need less capitals, you need a much larger support fleet. To travel between systems and ensure your support fleet is able to move, especially if a group gets attacked is going to take a considerably longer time.
Bombers are able to effectively avoid all of this. The fact that they are training ground for junior FCs is just a bonus, and means that several siege fleets can operated completely independently at the same time.

Seriously, what is your problem? You've been presented with several reasonable descriptions of why in many cases siege fleet is far superior to a capital fleet and showed in the field that they work. If TEST had successfully used them you'd be sitting around praising their initiative. We get it, you don't like the CFC, but at this point all you are doing is stamping your feet and denying the plain truth of the matter.

Honestly, I'm going to stop bothering to even try to explain to you. You have it dead set in your mind that siege fleet = crap, and to be honest it means absolutely nothing. All it really means is that if you are ever in a position to make a large scale strategic decision, you are going to get dunked hard. If you want to go on with the incredibly terrible ideas that "bigger = better" or "expensive = better", you are welcome to.

Anonymous said...

I don't get this at all. Congratulations for realising fighter assist. But the very reason to go with stealth bombers is because nothing else can be that easily deployed, it's cheap and very agile and yes does little dmg.
It looks crap to you. sure. So go ahead and change some sov with what you discovered.

Smith said...

I don't get this criticism about 'bomb-less bombers' at all.

Any fit, and ALL fits, should be optimized for what the role the ship have in the current fleet it is in.

I've flown bombers with and without bombs. Sometime you're just NOT going to bomb, then a probe launcher might be more handy. Need the bomber to be outside harms way of most ships? Fit long range Javelin torps and damps.

Not realizing the the mission defines the fit is just not grasping what mission adaption means.

Solai said...

"Of course the comment of Lucas is right: if the reason of using bombers is incompetence, than I bow out, yes, junior FC plus drunken pilots are better in simple bombers."

I had thought that trolling was not your style.
And if it's not... Given the river of data in this comment section and in prior posts, it is absolutely bizarre that you come to this conclusion.

If we assume that the majority of Eve players posses about the same level of competence(whatever that may mean), then you are proposing that somehow the alliances of the CFC defy the statistics, and manages to pick up the worst of the worst.
This is not probable.

Continuing with that assumption, if it's the junior FC's that are incompetent, then that presumes that the different alliance leaders have selected a group of FC's that are, compared to their membership average, less competent.
Surely you can agree this is also an unlikely scenario.

I could say more, but it's difficult to tackle the scope of what's wrong with that line you wrote. It's hard to know even where to begin.

I've read most of your posts for the past year. Given the context, this is the most irrational statement I think I've seen from you. I hope that you realize the problems in it, and consider how it is that you settled on such a bad conclusion.

And if you are just trolling us, man, you're better than that. So please don't.

Anonymous said...

First anonymous: opportunity cost. If one dread is hitting the structure and 19 pilots are making ISK even with pathetic 50M/hour, the dread (carrier) just have to live 1:20 to pay for itself.
Perhaps, But you ignore the morale loss for welping an entire capital fleet. Morale wins wars old chap.

Anonymous said...

Just have your Carrier/Supercarrier orbit the POS just outside the shield. If hostiles show up duck inside to safety.