Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would like to see a new Model for Stealth Bombers being in the Destroyer sized range would make more sense with the new missile bays and would give more variety to the game. I also would want to have 4 launcher bays on the ship with 2 highs for the cloak and bomb launcher. Or allow for a set up to be either 4 launchers with a cloak or 3 launchers with a bomb and a cloak. or make it so it could have 2 bomb launchers with a cloak. to give this ship more variety of how it is flown. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
232
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why? |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
In another game, that might be a great idea.
People already consider the SB marginally acceptable, because it can cloak and do damage. Just not enough to insta pop ships usually.
Anything bigger than a frigate, could effectively duplicate what takes multiple frigates. Now when you add cloaking to that, you have the space equivalent of backstabbing insta-pop kill-mail harvest time. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
653
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Why?
"Because I want it that way" |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
It was just an idea I had as IRL stealth bombers are slower and align more slowly plus i dont feel the damage that the ship does now is what it should be. This ship should be a glass cannon and as it stand a AF can out DPS it. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
MIrple wrote:It was just an idea I had as IRL stealth bombers are slower and align more slowly plus i dont feel the damage that the ship does now is what it should be. This ship should be a glass cannon and as it stand a AF can out DPS it. You are missing the point.
It is unpopular because anything that can cloak is considered powerful, and perception is that it can deliver it's damage with immunity to any defense requiring preparation. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
So what your saying is because a ship is powerful it shouldn't be in the game. It wouldn't be all that more powerful with the idea i have as torps still have massive explosion radius. So if your dumb enough to Carebear and get caught by this you deserve to get popped. Also with the larger size it would be easier to hit by most ships so it would be more vulnerable also. It would be a even trade off. If your saying any ship that can cloak is OP then Recons, T3's and Black OP's should be removed from the game also. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
MIrple wrote:So what your saying is because a ship is powerful it shouldn't be in the game. It wouldn't be all that more powerful with the idea i have as torps still have massive explosion radius. So if your dumb enough to Carebear and get caught by this you deserve to get popped. Also with the larger size it would be easier to hit by most ships so it would be more vulnerable also. It would be a even trade off. If your saying any ship that can cloak is OP then Recons, T3's and Black OP's should be removed from the game also. You don't get it still. I am not arguing that I feel that way, I am pointing out perception is doing this.
I am intrigued by the idea, but it will be unpopular with too many because of it's cloaking ability. |
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
MIrple wrote:It was just an idea I had as IRL stealth bombers are slower and align more slowly plus i dont feel the damage that the ship does now is what it should be. This ship should be a glass cannon and as it stand a AF can out DPS it. What you're smoking, can I has?
Against small stuff, sure an AF can out dps an SB, but against say, a battleship, where both will being doing max damage, a completely gank fit (rigs and all) Ishkur with t2 blasters firing void ammo 'only' has 369 dps while a Nemisis, with T2 torp launchers firing rage torps, and nothing else fitted at all puts out 400 dps, and 631 dps when gank fit (does not include bombs) Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
731
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
MIrple wrote:It was just an idea I had as IRL stealth bombers are slower and align more slowly plus i dont feel the damage that the ship does now is what it should be. This ship should be a glass cannon and as it stand a AF can out DPS it.
SBs are already glass cannons. Making them slower and more slugish will make them even harder to use, since all it takes is a mean look to pop one. |
|
Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:MIrple wrote:So what your saying is because a ship is powerful it shouldn't be in the game. It wouldn't be all that more powerful with the idea i have as torps still have massive explosion radius. So if your dumb enough to Carebear and get caught by this you deserve to get popped. Also with the larger size it would be easier to hit by most ships so it would be more vulnerable also. It would be a even trade off. If your saying any ship that can cloak is OP then Recons, T3's and Black OP's should be removed from the game also. You don't get it still. I am not arguing that I feel that way, I am pointing out perception is doing this. I am intrigued by the idea, but it will be unpopular with too many because of it's cloaking ability. HINT HINT: Lose the cloak, and keep the damage potential below T2 cruiser output, and you might have something.
(Assuming we are talking about a T2 destroyer)
Anything this powerful won't need the cloak anyways. Think warthog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
Armor it up, so it fits between the AF and the HAC, and you have your beast. A destroyer in the word's true meaning... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sorry I guess it has been a while since I have EFT'd a SB. Last time I did a fit it was pushing out 250 DPS they must have changed them not to long ago. |
CaleAdaire
0ne Percent. Transmission Lost
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:In another game, that might be a great idea.
People already consider the SB marginally acceptable, because it can cloak and do damage. Just not enough to insta pop ships usually.
Anything bigger than a frigate, could effectively duplicate what takes multiple frigates. Now when you add cloaking to that, you have the space equivalent of backstabbing insta-pop kill-mail harvest time. But your hedgehog idea is good? Please stop asking for new stuff "Cuz it's neat".-á |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
What about a Heavy Bomber then with 4 launchers 2 bomb points. No Cloak. Would be fun to take around. I think if this was done though you would need to scale back the damage per level to 10% instead of the 15%. This could be a nice anti capital weapon. These are just idea I have all I am looking for is input on the ideas. If they never make it into the game so be it. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
CaleAdaire wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:In another game, that might be a great idea.
People already consider the SB marginally acceptable, because it can cloak and do damage. Just not enough to insta pop ships usually.
Anything bigger than a frigate, could effectively duplicate what takes multiple frigates. Now when you add cloaking to that, you have the space equivalent of backstabbing insta-pop kill-mail harvest time. But your hedgehog idea is good? Yeah, I think it is. The Hedgehog has nothing to do with cloaking as a design attribute either.
Plus, if you had not noticed, it is considered underpowered and vulnerable, as far as ship designs go.
Now, this is not my thread, so I will try to avoid inflicting more of that idea here.
Dual bomb launchers, assault destroyer... that could be interesting. But I think losing the cloak makes sense here, it is powerful and people will object a lot less if they can see it coming. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
MIrple wrote:What about a Heavy Bomber then with 4 launchers 2 bomb points. No Cloak. Would be fun to take around. I think if this was done though you would need to scale back the damage per level to 10% instead of the 15%. This could be a nice anti capital weapon. These are just idea I have all I am looking for is input on the ideas. If they never make it into the game so be it. I think you have something there.
Suggestions: Throw assault level defense on it, use the HAC and AF as reference, and put it in between those to start with.
Take a look at the DPS you are throwing out, that is almost exactly twice what the SB can do. If you are doing more DPS over time than the HAC, roll it back some. Drop bonuses first. If using EFT, make sure you check to include reload time. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:50:00 -
[17] - Quote
Yes I think this would add an interesting game play for Alliances that like to blob large cap fleet if you sent in the heavy bombers you could set up bomb run against these and try to take them out this way or orbit them and hit them with your torps as only med and light drones would be able to hit you. I think the target DPS of the launchers should be around 500 as that is a fair amount from a destroyer but not as much as HACs can put out. With the resist and AB speed take this would make me really like some help fleshing out this idea more if more people like this. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
97
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:10:00 -
[18] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Yes I think this would add an interesting game play for Alliances that like to blob large cap fleet if you sent in the heavy bombers you could set up bomb run against these and try to take them out this way or orbit them and hit them with your torps as only med and light drones would be able to hit you. I think the target DPS of the launchers should be around 500 as that is a fair amount from a destroyer but not as much as HACs can put out. With the resist and AB speed take this would make me really like some help fleshing out this idea more if more people like this.
Best I can suggest is start from an existing design, either the T1 or Interdictor for the race you want to work with, maybe a compromise between the two.
Guesstimate what the shield and armor would look like if it fell in between the AF and the HAC for that race. Use the resist bonuses that fell right from those as well. (The HAC is probably further away than the AF for practical purposes)
This could be a really fun ship, if done right. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
With the change from SB being destroyer sized ships to a T2 Destroyer Called a Heavy Bomber should I start a new thread on this With the heading Heavy Bomber? |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
101
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
MIrple wrote:With the change from SB being destroyer sized ships to a T2 Destroyer Called a Heavy Bomber should I start a new thread on this With the heading Heavy Bomber? That would help it to be recognized, also include a reference to Destroyer, so people have an idea what to expect.
Also, including the destroyer ref will attract the crowd hungering to see this ship class expanded. It is a popular interest I found. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |