|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 18:43:00 -
[1]
Holy cow they listened to feedback!
Where do i send doughnuts? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:08:00 -
[2]
You know, letting bombers fit Cruise OR Torps, then fixing Bombs to make them an alpha weapon for use against BS (They would be suitable if they did perhaps 10% damage to a targets prime tank after resists, at the current costs 10 bombs to break your standard buffered BS tank isnt obscene, add in that they are 'one shot', or have a reload time in minutes...)
Ah what the hell, CCP wan everyone to fly Bombers in packs of 50 and lose all of them to destroy 1 or 2 BS; assuming the support or ANY frigates or drones present dont wipe out most of the bombers before they volley the second BS. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:52:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Vall Kor If not why would you take an SB over say a BC or better yet a BS?
As it stands i suspect i will only be flying my Bomber in Lolfleets, ganking poorly fit ratting BS just 'cause i can.
In any other serious situation i would stick to flying a cruiser, BC or Frigate; they can all kill a BS, albeit only certain setups in the cse of a frig. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:56:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Pac SubCom After testing the new bombers I feel confident that these bombers can do almost exactly what the old bombers could, albeit with a shift in target selection.
You are telling me that SB's can now two volley thier designated by design targets of choice? I want one of these SB's that can two volley a BS.
Or maybe you meant they can still Alpha frigates as they could previously? Hint: They cant!
Or maybe you are being sarcastic or facetious and my brain is tired Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Interestingly, none of the ships you mentioned can two volley a BS either.
Interestingly that was not what i suggested, which i am assuming you know.
Interestingly you chose to combine separate posts on different issues to suggest i was insinuating something i didnt.
Interestingly You seem to have chosen to ignore that i was noting the previous ability of SB's being able to alpha targets, as oposed to the role being designed for them where they WONT be able to alpha or deal significant burst damage to thier new intended targets.
Did you just want to invent some imagined error in my post to argue about?
A Cruiser or BC or in some cases a frigate can all kill a BS, solo; of course its a LOT faster with 2 or three...
The proposed SB's will not be able to. SB's are being proposed as high alpha glass cannons, yet being given a weapons system only effective vs' targets where that ammount of alpha will be largely irrelevant.
The only pro the new SB's have i the covops cloak + covert cyno use. Sadly there is little they can kill that cant be done by a number of other ships. Cheaper. More effectively. With a larger target envelope. Faster.
Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: RedSplat on 01/04/2009 21:29:34
Originally by: Vall Kor
Basically the devs are forcing a paper tank to fight one of the highest HP ships in the game and not giving us the tools to kill that target. This needs to be either a much heavier armored ship class (HACs come to mind) or use range as the tank (current SBs with a tweak or two).
That wouldnt be so bad IF SB's did more Burst Dmg to a BS.
I dont want to see SB's soloing BS, what i do want to see is a well coordinated group of say 5 (ship investment considerable) being able to drop a standard combat fit (balance between plate and gank) BS before said BS can kill more than 1 or possibly 2 SB's.
I see a key soloution to this being the role of Bomb use- namely un-nerfing them and also allowing bomb use in Lowsec at least and preferably EVERYWHERE.
(No you wont see SB's being the bane of Empire dwellers, due to concord, bomb and t2 frigate costs and Sec penaltys.)
Bomb damage is sig based to an extent, tweaking the numbers so it only does anything like full damage to BS shouldnt be an issue; and really this is already the case i am told.
Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Armadalla Ok, so the torps are basically set in stone and the role of the Bomber is now to hit battleship targets. If thats the case, how about tweaking bombs to be more inline with the new role it's getting? Instead of an expensive, slow munition with an area of effect, shift them to be more like the precision-guided bombs we have today, designed for taking out hard, armored structures.
I like this. Even if there is simply another high alpha bomb variant introduced that acts as a slow moving missile (maybe not even doing a specific damage type?) effecting one target that would indeed seem to give the SB the punch its seemingly intended role seems to dictate.
I have a suspicion though that Devs may not consider the bomb launcher as the Stealth bombers prime weapon system, given that they have chosen to replace cruise missiles and given the reasoning for such appears to be that it will make SB's more effective against BS.
Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:00:00 -
[8]
Edited by: RedSplat on 01/04/2009 22:00:51
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)?
Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat.
That could be tweaked by having separate CPU use reductions for Cruise and Torp launchers on the same SB hull; is there actually any hard cap on the number of boni a ship can have, i've never spotted such in any of the literature? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
You want us to use Short or long range? Here you have Cruise long and bombs short. Fix bombs, or, really, allow us to fire citadel torps.
Thats actually my preffered soloution. However, i was examining others and offering them up for discussion.
Since you mention it, Citadel Torps?
Sorry, but i have this wonderfull image of a tiny Pod duct-taped to a 747 sized Citadel torp and some crazed pilot ramming it into a BS.
I cant really see CCP letting Frigates fire missiles that are larger (?) than they are- and frankly why would they when they can simply introduce a new type of bomb for the bomb launcher that has the same effect? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:44:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Greg DaimYo
I am thinking of roams with 2 Falcons, 2 Arazus and 2 Dictors fitted with a cloak plus 20 Stealth Bombers and you are going to have fun times in enemy territory.
Until you hit your first large hostile gang and you lose most of your SB's.
That said that does sound fun as a one-off, but i just dont see it working in reality- not many people have the coordination and FC's to pull something like that off and every ship you lose is a significant kick in the pants isk wise. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 23:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Greg DaimYo
But to be more accurate: You can do a roam with 1 arazu, 1 falcon, 1 dictor with a cloak and 5 stealth bombers and have a field day in enemy territory, because it will be extremely hard to catch you.
And even if every lost SB is a severe loss to your DPS, it remains one of the safest ways to bring damage to your enemies home system(s).
I am very much looking forward to it, generally speaking.
In the specfic case of getting into Cynojammed systems via Blackops and causing havoc i love that.
However, you are still vulnerable to camps and the moment said fleet is identified by defenders you will swiftly find yourself camped in; and needing BO to jump you out. Followed by anything vulnerable staying docked, or being escorted.
Sadly the state of 'Local' isnt suitable for ANY true 'Stealth' or Guerilla operation in lowsec, 0.0 or Empire.
As far as creating stress and diverting resources however...
Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 00:47:00 -
[12]
Edited by: RedSplat on 02/04/2009 00:47:33
Originally by: Eigof Tahr 1. This is possible and effective. I have seen it and know it first hand.
Nice
I would love to see this; that is to say a massed gang of Stealth bombers in action, taking on a hard target and skill winning out. Do you think you can help with that; fraps personal experiences?
Originally by: Eigof Tahr 2. Not many people have the coordination to field large remote rep cap ship fleets or POS fueling logistics, but somehow it happens. So that logic is flawed.
Yes, it would if i was speaking in absolutes. But i'm not and we both know the issue with any kind of finesse tactic/playstyle is experience and practice and the results of such (RR BS gangs, Logistics support- Whatever) vary depending on such.
I was saying that not many people manage to pull such things off well, that most people arent nearly as succesfull as they could be if you prefer that phrasing. I'm not sure whether you were re-iterating that point, somethign similar or are making another one entirely?
Originally by: Eigof Tahr 3. Self control when it comes to an FC is important. When you encounter the obvious situation that you can't handle, you stay cloaked. Stealth bombers are not conventional fleets, you don't slam your fleet against any and every opponent because they happen to be there.
Poor FC's are poor FC's and idiots will be idiots. I believe i made the point in another thread that SB's were/are rather trickier to use right than many ship people could choose to fly. But thanks for the lecture
Originally by: Eigof Tahr So few individuals understand good and proper covert ops pvp, and even fewer organizations, that it kills me when the peanut gallery comes out to post about it. I have been checking out killboards, and for talking a lot about stealth bombers, many of you have no kills or losses to prove you know how they work in a real engagement with an fc that knows how to use them. Numbers speak.
Belittling others opinions because you fly stealth bombers (and i assume from your tone beleive you fly them well and have definite opinions about such) and failing to take into account that people have multiple accounts (Falcon alt lawlz!!1!!), fly with competent people whom do fly them, fly Covops or Recons themselves and have worthwile ideas/suggestios and accurate opinions...well- people are wondering whether YOU are a Dry roast or Salted i would imagine, though mighty is you prowess and surely greatest of the Nobby's Nut's you are
Now personally
...Well you can evemail me if you are interested where and how i form my opinions. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 12:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Its anti-large ship but cannot kill them in a few volleys WTF!
This is intended and we hope the majority of you understand why. Having a ship that can one volley a battleship goes to very dark and horrible places quickly. The bomber when combined with other ships in a gang becomes an incredible provider of damage and that is where its focus is at.
It is quite possible despite its perceived survivability rating that you could come up with a strategy which allows you to solo targets. Never underestimate the right scenario and player :)
Okay.
The issue was never having a frigate that can instapop a BS, you overstate that i think, but that if you want SB's to be high alpha ship and target BS then you NEED them to do significant Alpha.
Do you think its reasonable to have a situation where 4 or 5 SB's can pop a BS with the second volley fired?
Also,
BOMBS
Why arent they being considered to fufill the anti BS role?
Hint: they dont curently.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 12:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Captain Vampire Great feedback Chronotis, looking forward to flying these ships on TQ in my favorite small roaming gang. Definitely a buff for recon gangs. Tbh, I am a bit afraid that this covert ops cloak combined with delayed local in WH will make these ships a bit OPed even in the right situations..
They will still have a smaller engagement envelop than say a Pilgrim, put out less DPS (?) and be FAR easier to kill.
Oh by the way, WH space is meant to be dangerous.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 12:58:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis The suggestion to extend its use to low sec would be be too powerful generally however a second pass at bombs like many other things is needed.
I am intrigued, what exactly is so OP about allowing Lowsec bomb use?
As i see matters,
If anything bombs would be less effective in Lowsec than they currently are in 0.0, the reason being that intended targets can more readily warp out when a slow moving bomb appears on the field (the lack of Hictor Bubbles) and the fact that Lowsec (specifically FW areas) Fleets tend to have a more diverse range of ships-
Bombs only do full damage to large targets, are currently still prohibitedly expensive and in addition require a suicide run on the part of the SB.
It is easy for frigates to warp out when a bomb appears on grid, before it hits- frigates are hypothetically the only ship class bar detroyers actually at risk of being instapopped by a bomb; assuming 0 resists, not moving etc...
A SB with a covops cloak would surely more readily get in a position to use bombs more effectively, but with the proposed 30 sec cloaking cooldown would be even more vulnerable following bomb launcher use than currently
Suiciding a T2 frigate against an enemy fleet in lowsec by using bombs in thier current incarnation still represents an overwhelming investment in isk for a minimal return in damage dealt.
So am am wondering what the balancers, movers and shakers think is so OP about lowsec bomb use?
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:20:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jason Edwards Imagine jita 4/4 with bombs allowed. Fit like 50 manticores into neut orca. Bring -10 pirates to jita. Launch ship. Fit. BOOM.
NO.
Unless your aim is just to wind people up this is a terrible way of suicide ganking.
-SB's are expensive and not insurable -Bombs are expensive -Bombs destroy eachother; with resists to thier damage type you can still only drop 4-5 bombs depending on skilllevel at once before the blasts start to wipe out other bombs on grid.
Please dont muddy the issue, ideally i would like to see Bomb use allowed everywhere, with the apropriate concord response of course.
I have never understood the reasoning behind Bombs being a 0.0 only item.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:23:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nareg Maxence
Give it some sort of bonus so that it is good at shooting starbase structures (targets that are standing still?) fast and getting out unseen. Take a small group and bridge it into a cyno-jammed system and give it a good chance of taking this key structure out quickly, given enough numbers.
New bomb type:
Targeted point-damage bunker busters, doing extreme damage to a single target, with an explosion radius (or other quality) that means they are effective vs' Capitals and Towers/Pos mods only.
Or simply have said bombs only effecting Towers/tower mods if balancing the damage so a SB fleet cant alpha a capital is difficult.
Balance them such that say 5 SB's could one volley a Cynojammer with this bomb type, but make the volume of the ammunition such that the SB cargohold cant carry them: so they must be loaded in station or from a corp hangar/ship maintenance bay/ whatever and once the SB has fired this bomb it has to 'return to base' to reload.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:41:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Low sec is a different playground with different rules despite smartbombs being allowed as the only area effect weapon. Adding bombs to that list whilst it could open up some interesting gameplay can easily topple the balance between strategies and tactics for survival for example for different levels of players.
We carefully have not allowed many of the things allowed in null sec to deliberately create areas of space where different ships and tactics are required but also where people can slowly ease themselves into the advanced and high level gameplay of null sec with bubbles and doomsdays.
It is not a perfect ambience and transition but we would still like to maintain different rule sets between the different playgrounds.
I have to say i just flat out disagree with some aspects of that reasoning.
I live in Lowsec. When i go to 0.0 its to kill things.
Bombs are an anti blob weapon yes? Or are at least intended as such.
I would love for all the Devs to be forced to join corps that live in Lowsec for a week and participate in ops and live there. It seems to be a consistent disconnect between those of us that live in Lowsec and what Devs seem to think Lowsec is like.
Lowsec is 0.0 without Doomsday use, certain types of POS setups, Hictor bubbles and other analogues and the addition of Gateguns. Thats about it really, the Blob is ubiquitous, capitals and capital use is commonplace and you have powerfull conglomerates of players controlling systems.
In many respects the differences between lowsec and 0.0 are nedglidgeable as far as standard gameplay is concerned; i do not count multi billion isk ships with grid-killing weapons 'standard', one can live in 0,
It seems a common theme that CCp considers Lowsec '0.0 with the training wheels on'. It is not. Lowsec is another entity entirely to 0.0 and equally as dangerous; in many aspects considerably more so than 0.0.
Yet to return to a previous point: Blob warfare is dominant in lowsec.
Please give us the tools to break up those massed fleets, in the form of bomb use, 0.0 has the doomsday or the bomb (which is not used, this should tell you the extent to which they were pre-nerf'd). Lowsec has only the option of a larger fleet.
Make Lowsec the area where bomb use finds it niche, promoting smaller gang warfare with varied fleets, 'cause bombs sure as hell dont have an effective role in 0.0
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Batolemaeus What about warping out when you dropped your load? Ever considered doing this?
You have to wait until the missiles hit (from outside of point range so lets say +27 km) and hope that your target doesnt spot you decloaking and the missiles en route and deploy light drones or sentrys (?).
Sure you can then warp out (provided you survive the drones, which is possible), but a single volley from a single SB isnt going to worry anything.
Could a gang do this? Sure. I am certain people WILL do this, combined with Sd's scripted for scan res.
But bear in mind this means you need an even larger gang of SB's to kill a BS target, indeed may not be able to if he active tanks unless your gang size is huge
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:42:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: RedSplat
That and we're talking about a frigate here - damn right it should be easier to kill.
C.
My point was that the existence of ships like the Pilgrim makes claims that the SB would be OP with a Covops cloak a little odd.
Whats a Geddon more frightened of, the new SB or a Pilgrim?
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 18:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Bombs
We are looking at increasing the batch count from 3 to 20 per manufacturing run. This means the material cost of bombs will be near 800k using current TQ prices.
Good price to have bombs at, good start as far as un-nerfing them.
Perhaps you could examine increasing bomb damage vs' LARGE targets like towers/ancorables and capitals (and to a lesser degree BS), while leaving damage to smaller targets as it is currently?
But, please take into account that Lowsec has no recourse to defeating the blob other than bringing an EVEN LARGER fleet.
I stand by my asertation that no bomb use in lowsec is nonsensical and that bombs would find thier niche in lowsec and be a valuable addition to the game in tha area, adding variety and tactical choices rather than detracting from the game and favouring bland faceless 'balls of death' where the only valid tactic is to bring a larger fleet or snipe.
Please also consider:
in 0.0 SB's will be able to hurl bombs AND Torps, SB's will be shafted as far as burst damage output in Lowsec by comparrison.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 12:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: paddytehpyro
Originally by: Tozmeister I had an idea for coordinating a cloaked gang. Change the 'In Position' broadcast to work on a cloaked ship.
Currently, if you broadcast while cloaked the graphic icon just defaults to the nearest celestial body as observed by your gang mates.
Have the Icon appear in space where it should be (right over your ship) but only visible to ppl in your gang then you have a tool for demonstrating in 3 dimensions exactly where all ships are located allowing you to maneuver into position without decloaking each other.
That would be brilliant.
I would like this done yesterday, its an annoying and totally unnecesary 'feature'
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 14:23:00 -
[23]
Originally by: DNSBLACK CCP Chronotis- Testing 2 hours on sisi friday night
1. Damage 15% will not cut it 20% was the correct number for the increase. Iam affraid that if we do 15% increase this time and it isnt working CCP will not revisit the bomber to move back to 20%. The final change should be 20 %
I was pretty leery about this, although i know why it was changed.
My ideal would be shifting the damage bonus to a much higher value (say even 100%), but then changing the fire rate to keep DPS from being lunacy.
Rather than simply changing base firerate for the SB hull i cant fathom why Chronnie nerf'd the dmg boni:
The stated worry was how volley damage stacked up over time, for example 5 SB's firing 3 volleys in a relatively short time and popping a BS with the second or third.
So, why not increase the time between volleys and increase the dmg bonus.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Hey Folks,
Quick update on what we are looking at testing:
- increase of bomb velocity to 2000m/s
ninja edited - wrong bonus change listed
So, the bombs that arent worth using are now a little faster, hence better range and less chance of idiots blowing themselves up.
Forgive me if i dont jump for joy.
Bomb use in Lowsec.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 14:59:00 -
[25]
SB's NEED that explosion V bonus.
Sure that extra range is nice, but Torps are gimped and need the previous bonus.
How many sodding TP's were you intending we bring.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:21:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Murashu CCP Chronotis,
Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?
Not ignoring anyone at all and have listened and read every post, especially the critics of the idea (remember listening is not the same as agreeing with). We just have not personally responded to every post and tend to respond generally to the most common suggestions.
re: bombs in low sec - not ruling it out in the future, but we have to think long and hard about the impact it has. Low sec has different rules and a different sandpit to null sec. Mixing weapons designed for null sec with low sec inst as trivial as it sounds though we can see why some of you would want it.
You still havent explained, in full, the reasoning behind these views
It would be nice to have a recourse to the ubiquitous blob that casts a pall over Lowsec, as Anti-Blob tools go bombs would fit Lowsec well IMO; but i've already said that havent I
Would you please (with a cherry on top) explain:
Your, or rather the Dev teams, reasoning in full as to why Bomb use isnt suitable for Lowsec. Further what reasons led the confining of Bombs to Lowsec on thier introduction to the game during design and why yu think that reasoning is still apropriate.
And
What other tools have you given us to combat blobs in Lowsec. Please list them; Smartbombs and Nano (now nerf'd!) not withstanding.
Lastly
Do you think the SB has an antiblob role via bomb use? Leading on: why should Lowsec not benefit from that?
Cheers, thankyou for trawling through so many replies
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 19:19:00 -
[27]
Chronotis you are starting to impede on Zulupark levels of awesome in keeping with this thread and the discussion therein, i must say i fear for you wellbeing, for if you continue along this road it can only lead to a clash with Mitnal and that would be messy.
To my fellow players, please read the whole thread as i keep seeing people whom havent posted yet raising the same issues and/or point (withou further questioning or OC) that have already been commented on by a dev.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 19:31:00 -
[28]
Originally by: darkmancer
They're fine solo upto small groups, but start getting 10+ together eep.
Honestly, i would rather see and fly with a 10 man RR BS gang than a SB gang. Apart from being cheaper to lose you have a much better engagement envelope in almost all situations.
The reality will be that people will use whatever is most effective for the job and for anything but deep 0.0 recon gangs, BO mediated travel or ganking ratters there are other ships that perform any given role more effectively; and for less isk after insurance!
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 19:12:00 -
[29]
Did the re-cloak time to 15 seconds not make it onto SISI (or am i just hallucinating?)
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 11:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: DNSBLACK Red the servers were rebooted and it went back to old 30 sec one you are fine.
Black
+1 cookie
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 11:59:00 -
[31]
40 pages
Chronnie looks like he is about to seal the deal
Then CCP stumbles at the last hurdle and fck's up again.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 16:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: DNSBLACK CCP Chronotis,
There was one number in all the builds that remained the same. 20% to explosion velocity. Your changes took the guided missle skills away and the explosion radius bounus away from the bomber. Now we have range and no damage to the intended target the BS. You failed at patching the server before easter then BAM you give us the next test numbers and BAM you send out the patch notes saying it is the final build. Then the final knife 10% explosion velocity that has never been tested is going to be the final release. Iam just really confused 10% explosion velocity was it all internal testing that lead to this final number? Honestly keep the 10% flight time and give us the explosion velocity back. You stated the role was to be a BS killer help me understand this new role with the bonuses you gave us. BS can speed tank us and cut our damage in half due to this new number. Do you honestly think it is over powered so you pre nerfed your new torp bomber. I just feel used and betrayed for wasting my time testing to find out internal testing trumps all. I guess I should have stopped caring after the comment "We are listening, we just dont agree"
Welcome to the Stealth Bomber Age!
....Where battleships speedtank our Torps and one has to be using racial ammo to do meaningful damage.
Wait, something is wrong here
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 15:25:00 -
[33]
Screwed the pooch.
and now it will take 6 months to get dev's to even pretend to look at them again.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: DNSBLACK you asked us for input and yet you never even put out the build that hit the patch notes 30 mins after you put half built final build on the test server.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:22:00 -
[35]
Things i have learnt:
Large Pulse with Scorch loaded are evil, evil things. AC's with Barrage are bad news.
See a common theme here?
Shield buffer BC's are hit for acceptable damage when triple webbed and target painted.
Also, testing on TQ while minimal leads me to conclude that in real life situations in gangs- the StealthBomber is effective.
BUT only if you are running a HAC gang on a roam or somethign of similar ilk. As soon as you need to fight in Lowsec or fight anything smaller than a BC there is no point in bringing a SB.
I am enjoying using the SB as a combat scout thus far. Of course, there are still other ships i could be flying more effectively...
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
|
|
|