Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:49:00 -
[331]
P.S. Damps nerf and OPHIC's was two previous most bright changes that I can remember to now. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:50:00 -
[332]
Dr. Chronolove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Torp Bomber - Part 2 _________________________________________________________________________________
Now for the ugly bit, what to do about the wasted SP, the gaping hole in the frigate lineup and BOMBS?
There is no precedent for the current situation, things have been nerfed, buffed and often bruised in the process but a ship has never been removed from the game entirely to be replaced by a different ship.
Through the nano nerfs no one ever tried to make the vagabond into a slow tough ship and the missile nerf didn't see the raven become a hybrid platform yet that is the magnitude of change we are seeing in the bomber.
For the record I quite like the idea of the new ship and will be testing on sisi soon. I also have a big soft spot for the old bomber and calling this new ship a stealth bomber seems like spitting on the grave of a good friend.
Skill Points
The manticore is a popular ship that can often turn over 100 units in a day in The Forge alone. The other races bombers are currently in the 50 units is a good day bracket which is surprisingly high for races who have no other reason to train cruise missiles.
Hopefully CCP have some form of data mining to find the number of non caldari players who have both cruise lvl 5 and covert ops lvl 4 because I believe it's quite a few and the next paragraph is afaik unique in the history of eve nerfs.
Any player who took the 2 months plus of skill training required for T2 cruise with lvl 4 support skills will have no alternative platform to use these skills. With support skills at level 5 you're talking a lot longer than 2 months.
Now i guess that the potion of offering a one time swap from cruise to torpedo skills would be poison for the database engineers though i'm not qualified to say.
The alternative would be a cruise platform that fits in with CCP's vision. The details of that suggestion are for another thread however I will state again that this a highly unusual situation where the pilots involved deserve some sympathy as opposed to the vaga and falcon pilots who still have valuable skills even after being nerfed.
Or give us our bomber back Range nerf it, make it hard to hit frigs, call it a heavy missile frigate, whatever.
Tactical Frigate
With the ship transplant surgery CCP are suggesting i'd like to know what's going to replace the bomber as a sniper / anti cruiser frigate in the lineup of T2 frigs? Cruisers are probably the most numerous ship class in the pvp game yet there is no longer a frigate designed to offer DPS against a HAC.
A ship based on the current bomber but carrying ranged medium weapons appropriate to race would be nice to see, it would be targeted at a specific ship class and fit in nicely with the current range of frigates, mainly because there's a gaping hole in T2 frig abilities left by the new bomber plans.
The range would be fine for post speed nerf tranquility and its stated aim does not overlap with other ships.
Bombs
Given that no one flys about with bombs in for roaming you need to have one ready for a specific situation plus have the ability to reload or change ship afterwords which will require a station, pos or carrier.
This limits them to system defense in most cases and is more hassle than most people want. To make bombs useful you need to somehow sever them from the need to be close to a logistical base. Making them cheaper, smaller, usable in low sec and have rude messages on the side would help too.
Amarrian sharks
Veterans of previous nerfs will know that CCP has a tank full of sharks with friking lazor beams attached to their heads and devs who are seen to be weak in the face of the mob have greater worries than us lot.
I like your new ship Chronotis but please can we have 2 ships instead. You'd be our hero and you wouldn't get eaten by sharks
|
Defeated
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:56:00 -
[333]
Originally by: yani dumyat
I like your new ship Chronotis but please can we have 2 ships instead. You'd be our hero and you wouldn't get eaten by sharks
Two bomber types would indeed be pure win. Maybe they could try to actually adjust the sig radius factor on the cruise one like someone suggested.
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 01:02:00 -
[334]
Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE While I was watching the both threads about stealth bombers I noticed that I really can't understand one thing - you CCP donated all your brains to medicine!?
You declared an anti-battleship role to bombers and gave them torps. Let's make some tests:
We're taking the most helpless BS in a game - Rokh in a snipe config against a gang of 3 SB's. Everybody is 'All Level V'.
- Such rokh has about 110 kilos of spherical health.
- SB with current set of bonuses on sisi giving out about 3500 of spherical damage.
- This mean that 3 bombers have to shoot 11 times to kill that BS. This is 100 seconds.
- Rokh have 50m dronebay. So we have 10 light or 5 medium drones against 3 bombers.
- Manticore fitted with 2 target painters have to fire 11 times to destroy one Hobgoblin I. This is 100 seconds.
- Manticore fitted with 2 target painters have to fire 5 times to destroy one Valkirye II. This is 50 seconds.
- 5 Hobgoblins-I will pop the manticore in 15 seconds.
- 5 Valk's II will pop the manticore in 5 seconds.
All this scrap above above means that World's Helpless Battleship Contest perma-champion named Rokh will kill each bomber at least twice whilst bombers will try to kill BS. All this scrap means that you CCP sold all your brains for cannabis.
I vote to fire everyone involved in this comedy. If they can't predict so simple consequences, they worth only washing the floor in the office.
Should I continue?
Pretty much what we've been saying, the damage out put does not match the new "role" of this ship. But the devs aren't listening so it's a waste telling them this |
Vhedrish Nell
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 02:09:00 -
[335]
Have you considered how these ships would affect POS warfare? A fleet of frigates... packing torpedoes (with plenty of range), cloaks, and able to covops cyno in and out of any system (including cynojammed systems per the proposed blackops changes). Such a fleet would be able to strike anytime, anywhere, and simply fade into the stars if they faced too much opposition. I don't believe this would be healthy for the game.
|
Djakku
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 02:49:00 -
[336]
Thanks again guys, you manage to totally nerf something just a few days before i've finished the learning for it. First interceptors, now stealth bombers, I'm scared to train for anything else incase you nerf that too. <=[
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 03:23:00 -
[337]
If I worked at CCP, the over-the-top kvetching in this thread would inspire me to make an April 1 post about the new new concept for this ship class. Hint: It's all about small smartbombs! ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 03:54:00 -
[338]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 01/04/2009 03:59:03 Bomber on SISI as of right now. 02:50
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Torpedo EM damage per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb EM damage 250% bonus to cloaked velocity per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use and -100% targeting delay after decloaking
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators
---------
1. The changes mentioned on the front page have not hit the server yet.
2. We tested the the first change and really found it lacking in over all damage out put. Our cruise bomber were as good and maybe even better in over all damage out plus we got the range. The sig radious bonus really made the bomber special. If you take that off and give us torps instead you have nerfed it and hurt the ship.
3. The other hidden nerf was the training to get the torps up and running.
Suggestion:
a. Find a way to keep the explosion radiuos reductionbonus for the torps.
b. If the above can not happen then i believe a 25% will help more then 20% on all velocity. I will hold off on these thoughts i until we can open test them.
c. Increase siege ammo bay from 18 to 25
d. Cloak either one will be fine really dont think this is the issue with this ship. Cov cloaks would be nice but really dont need one to be happy.
e. Missle rigs for explosion radious reduction will not work with torps. Would like this option for my bomber if we go to torps and lose the bonus of the orignal bommber.
f. The speed increase while cloaked is nice but again not something that will fix the bomber.
In general the bomber issue are not the movment and cloaking alpha. The changes to date once they are boiled down look like this.
1. Loss of range option ( would like the ability to max out at 100 km at least) Hopfully to 20%/25% missle velocity will help fix this.
2. Limit ships they can effectivly hit for damage. Even with webs and painters cruisers and below were near impossible to kill. All a BS had to do to cut our torp damage by 25% to 35% was move with out a afterburner and the MWD sig hit did nothing to help our over all damage if they turned on. Most of them could micro warp or burn to 30 KM and be out of range.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 04:41:00 -
[339]
I was not impressed at all with the current bomber setup in the above post on the test server. This is a ship that quite a few lower skill point players step into and the extremely short range of Torps without max missile skills are going to see most of these players die a very quick death. In addition the damage to ships below BC size was horrendous even when painted and webbed. A bomber needs three vollies to kill another bomber. That is insanely hillarious!
I believe I also prefer the current test setup with no covert cloak and the additional speed bonus. The Covert cloak with cloaking delay will restrict most pilots to a single volley and warp off. Not all bomber fights are restricted to this single volley fight like some here are saying. They do quite well in longer engagements with the right fleet makeup. One way or another they need a bit more range because fitting Tech 2 Siege Launchers with Javelins will be available are not an option for most and the fit is very tight. I would also like to see the Explosion Velocity pushed up quite a bit or the explosion radius bonus kept. I cannot understand why all of the sudden this ships role is completely reversed. A frigate sized ship with zero tank and low speed is much more viable for the anti-support role then it is in the close range anti-battleship role. The bomber with these new changes pre-QR would probaly have been perfect. With the new missle changes and formulas not so much. I am optimistic that further tweaking is to come.
|
K'orbin Hayato
Minmatar Meridian Dynamics Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 05:10:00 -
[340]
Here's a novel idea. Instead of changing stealth bombers into a completely different ship, why not just add a new type of ship that warps cloaked and fits torps? --
If you find yourself in a fair fight, somebody screwed up. |
|
Morberi
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 05:28:00 -
[341]
GAH!
It's quite obvious that with the changes to the Black Ops and their little "hint" that they intend SB's to be used in 0.0 against Cynojammers.
Great! You just managed to screw over every other use in favor of niche use in 0.0 warfare.
Why not allow us normal pilots to fly them and remain useful as well as allowing us to do your new little strategy?
|
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 06:24:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Defeated
Originally by: yani dumyat
I like your new ship Chronotis but please can we have 2 ships instead. You'd be our hero and you wouldn't get eaten by sharks
Two bomber types would indeed be pure win. Maybe they could try to actually adjust the sig radius factor on the cruise one like someone suggested.
this
I think it is explosion velocity that needs buffing tho
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 06:36:00 -
[343]
Sheesh just leave the cruise missile bonus also on the hull, that way players can choose.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 07:08:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Vhedrish Nell Have you considered how these ships would affect POS warfare? A fleet of frigates... packing torpedoes (with plenty of range), cloaks, and able to covops cyno in and out of any system (including cynojammed systems per the proposed blackops changes). Such a fleet would be able to strike anytime, anywhere, and simply fade into the stars if they faced too much opposition. I don't believe this would be healthy for the game.
Yes most of the major players and alliances have thought of things we've not posted......
I already pointed out why they won't be used to kill Battleships as has everyone else.
So lets look at what they will be used to kill:
1. Soft Targets
Industrials and Transports have huge sig radius, no drones, limited weapons. A solo torp bomber will make short work of these. They'll seek to hit them in the belts because the gate guns of low sec and high sec will kill the bomber. In 0.0 they'll camp gates.
Exhumers and Mining Barges have huge sig radius, slow maneuverability, no weaponry but some drone cover. The problem is most miners don't pay attention or are semi afk. By the time they hear the first explosion it's over. These will be the main targets of bombers I think, especially in empire wars.
Industrial Command Ship like the ships they support huge sig radius, relatively little to no weapons, they do have some drones so there is some danger, but a small wolfpack especially with the aid of a recon or covert ops will make short work of these.
2. Sovereignty Warfare: It would take a wolfpack but it is possible that you could engage important structures like a cyno jammer and deal enough to destroy it. (especially with black ops changes). You'd take a number of decoy ships....super spider tanked ships that draw the attention of the POS weapons, then decloak the bombers and fire. (Gunners of course would probably change targets if present).
However they will not be useful against battleships except where the battleship is already under heavy fire or already damaged.
Fleet battles I don't see them being used in much respect as anti battleship. The time to train the covert ops cloak and the missile skills while less than many other avenues is still probably more than a beginner can do. If they are used in fleets it will not be as bombers, it'll be as cheap ew platforms. At almost 1/10th the price of a falcon they could be used fairly effectively even if they don't have its bonuses.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 07:10:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Defeated
Originally by: yani dumyat
I like your new ship Chronotis but please can we have 2 ships instead. You'd be our hero and you wouldn't get eaten by sharks
Two bomber types would indeed be pure win. Maybe they could try to actually adjust the sig radius factor on the cruise one like someone suggested.
A second bomber is a good idea, just make it take covert ops level 3 instead of level 1.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 07:41:00 -
[346]
Originally by: yani dumyat
There is no precedent for the current situation, things have been nerfed, buffed and often bruised in the process but a ship has never been removed from the game entirely to be replaced by a different ship.
Through the nano nerfs no one ever tried to make the vagabond into a slow tough ship and the missile nerf didn't see the raven become a hybrid platform yet that is the magnitude of change we are seeing in the bomber.
You know the Raven was once a gunboat until it was nerfed in to being a missile ship, right? Change happens.
I was probably one of the first people on TQ to buy a Manitcore (At the rip off price of 99mil ISK iirc). I loved it. However, the new bomber is actually more fun (I assume you have tried it?) than the old one was. It still needs a little tweaking, but it is a big step in the right direction.
アニメ漫画です
|
Saggy Glands
Amalgamated Transport And Trade
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 07:42:00 -
[347]
Horrible changes.
CCP must have the worst game designers ever, seriously. People have been asking for a slight buff to the stealth bomber for years now. Instead of doing so, some pudding head designer has decided to gut it then rework it as a floating coffin with an expensive cloak?
Yeah we're all itching to decloak 20km from a battleship, launch one torp volley while he laughs as his drones insta-pop us. That's almost as great as decloaking to launch a 15m isk bomb, and hoping you don't die the 15 seconds it takes your bomb to go off.
Screw your ******ed bright ideas, listen to the players in the assembly hall. (That is what it's there for right?) Buff the current stealth bomber's ability to be effective against smaller targets and people might actually fly it in a ranged anti-support and ewar roll. Make these stupid changes stick, and you can then have your Dr. Economist give you a report on why stealth bomber prices are now below production costs.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:00:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Saggy Glands Horrible changes. Yeah we're all itching to decloak 20km from a battleship, launch one torp volley while he laughs as his drones insta-pop us. That's almost as great as decloaking to launch a 15m isk bomb, and hoping you don't die the 15 seconds it takes your bomb to go off.
|Black Sinisters| |
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:02:00 -
[349]
Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 08:03:48
Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE Edited by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE on 01/04/2009 00:15:49 I vote to leave bombers as is, except modifying explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles to 19,5% per level.
This will allow bombers to fight against frigs/cruisers/hacs/BCs back. I don't want the people who never flew this ship to design it capabilities. Because they're absolutely incompetent.
UPD: I've started the poll in the Assembly Hall.
I agree with you HEPBHOE. I, like you, have made a number of postings regarding the demise of the Stealth Bomber and the improvements that need to be made. From the replies that I have seen, most people agree with our recomendations/findings.
You will probably agree HEPBHOE that 90% of pilots who want a torp bomber have little or no experience of piloting this class of ship. They do not understand and have not developed the necessary tactics to successfully use the cruise bomber and therefore do not care about its demise.
The solution is to make the torpedo bomber a new ship class:
STEALTH PRECISION BOMBER : current cruise setup with bonus to explosion radius/velocity per level.
STEALTH HEAVY BOMBER : new torpedo variant based upon the kestrel hull . . CCP Chronotis you say that you feel that the new ship will be better for us. We are old enough to make up our own minds on the bomber and 95% of us are saying to you that you can have your new torpedo bomber, but keep the cruise variant too and buff explosion radius/velocity. If not, then explain why you want to get rid of a perfectly balanced ship class.
Grz
|
royal killer
Amarr Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:35:00 -
[350]
This seems like an interesting change Now, fix EW frigates --------------------
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: Hello and w
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: ...damn nanowhiners. |
|
Javelin6
Minmatar Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 09:08:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Javelin6 on 01/04/2009 09:10:40 As Disel and DNSBlack have mentioned, the explosion velocity on torpedoes is too low to be significant even after a 20% per level boost (Sisi as of the writing is 10%). While damage against Battleships and BCs is superb, damage to T2 Cruisers is pathetic (even will good skills).
I understand the new role of the stealth bomber is to provide cheap firepower against large targets. I also understand the need to use the right tool for the right job however, hitting HACs (webbed, painted, scrambled) for 40 damage per warhead is not good.
When you are using tools and you need a hammer and have one bang away. If you don't have a hammer in the tool box you should be able to use a pipe wrench to accomplish the same thing.
HAC's shouldn't be the bombers target of choice, but HACs shouldn't be able to ignore bomber damage either.
We eagerly await further tweaking.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 09:11:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Avon
You know the Raven was once a gunboat until it was nerfed in to being a missile ship, right? Change happens.
I didn't know this and stand corrected. A quick search brought up a thread from 2003 complaining about the ravens split weapons system with missile ROF and hybrid range bonus.
Change does indeed happen judging from the following quote from said 2003 thread :
Originally by: Roba - Posted 2003.09.28
Or maybe a missile cloaking bonus? Think about it. 10sec per lvl. Right now its not effective for a Raven to fire its torps at long range because they will just be shot down. But what if at lvl 4 you got a 40sec cloak on them. Could fire them at 100km and the guy wouldn't know they were coming till the last 10 or so km.
Originally by: Avon
However, the new bomber is actually more fun (I assume you have tried it?) than the old one was.
As previously stated i like the look of the new ship. My sisi account is waiting activation because i was away during the last mirror but yes i will hopefully be testing it when i finish forum whoring, err i mean work.
The current bomber is fine despite being a relic of days when an improved cloak II and speed bonus were the last word in stealth, it's quirky yes and something of an anomaly in todays line up but ditching it completely is a sign of obsessive compulsive disorder and CCP should see a doctor immediately.
2 things i enjoy doing in this game are flying frigates and shooting cruisers, removing the bombers from the game removes the ability to stay out of point range in a fragile frigate with enough dps to be useful to a gang.
I hope CCP can see that one of their pigeonholes is now empty and give us 2 ships not one.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:04:00 -
[353]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 01/04/2009 10:04:43
Constructive asembly hall thread started here
Discuss here and vote there otherwise we simply get 2 identical threads.
Apologies to Chronotis for the extra thread to read, I tried to stem the emo tide and probably failed
|
Tamahra
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:52:00 -
[354]
ok the only use for the stealth bomber in high sec was to set up a trap against loot thieves, who always fly small ships. why the fck do you steal this part of the game from us.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 11:45:00 -
[355]
I disliek a LOT the cov ops cloak idea.
Why? First will skyrocket the cost of bombers. Second will diminish their true capabilities IN combat, pushing the stealth just into the warp in. Good SB pilots were usign uncloak fire clsoe range and recloak .
CLose range SB is ok, as long as you can recloak immediately. A NORMAL cloak with speed bonus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. than a cov ops with targeting delay and no speed bonus. |
Tekashi Kovacs
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 11:57:00 -
[356]
Give us ONE TIME swap from CRUISE to TORPEDO skills. |
Interghast
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:15:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Good SB pilots were usign uncloak fire clsoe range and recloak .
CLose range SB is ok, as long as you can recloak immediately. A NORMAL cloak with speed bonus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. than a cov ops with targeting delay and no speed bonus.
Some SB pilots liked to get in close, fire then reclock, but that was just one way of using them.
The ability to choose a setup to fit your playstyle or tactics for an op is one of the better parts of eve. Sadly CCP's recent "discussions" over "focussed roles" seems to be to get previously long ranged ships into a close range furball (the brawler falcon idea, bombers with 25km range torps as tested on sisi) which just tips the balance in favour of bigger (and thus slower) ships.
Currently I like to hang around at range assisting my gangmates with damps and cruise from 100km once a target is tackled or lob cruise missiles 200km at a falcon to scare them off (I note that the falcon range is now pretty much untouched if you fit 3 sda which most people I know already do, thus this bomber nurf neatly removes a viable anti-falcon platform...)
Agree with you on the cov-ops cloaking though, I'd rather have the current improved cloak than cov-ops cloak with recloak delay even though warping cloaked would be fun.
I guess CCP would rather we flew a cruise raven with a cloak instead of the current bomber. It can put out more alpha, can fit 3 ballistic controls, more ewar (or tank) and has options with drones and neuts to avoid getting tackled while aligning (plus it works out cheaper due to T1 insurance payout on loss).
Not saying an "alpha strike" bomber in close range is a bad idea as an option for those who want to risk it, but we already have that option (to a degree) with bombs, which have not been looked at since the speed changes and missile explosion velocity nurf.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:17:00 -
[358]
Quote: 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak
Oh boy.
Quote: However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.
Erm. So much for that? We cant get say 10-15 seconds? Just enough so you can recloak like mad; but still have time to recloak in many instances?
Quote: Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 20% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 20% bonus to Torpedo thermal damage per level
I am actually liking the stat.
Here's the big deal though:
0.0 sov 3 is malignant. People get their jumpbridges up running all over.
Stealth bombers are the sitting prey. You get 5-10 guys. Know the location of the jumpbridges. You dont really need to move around much. Put people on each side. Only engage someone once they have gone through and used fuel. The people who go through these bridges are often in pods or industrials and such. 1 stealth bomber should be enough to pop many light things. You fire, kill, and cloak before the pos could target you.
Now the pos has at least 30 seconds to get you? ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
eliminator2
Gallente Annihilate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:20:00 -
[359]
dnt replace the current one just make a second one like the recon ships
recon ships and cov ops r on the same training path so why carnt there allso be a force and combat bomber
|
Toyo Italari
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:29:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Toyo Italari on 01/04/2009 12:29:27 Well, I hopped onto SiSi for a bit this morning.
I realize that SiSi isn't necessarily in sync with the thread, and as noted previously the bonuses CCP laid out in the beginning aren't currently on SiSi.
That being said, I also find the 10% damage bonus to be rather lacking. With a 50% bump, I was doing 2400 volley to the structure of a freighter (no resists, of course, as it has no modules), with 3x Arbs, 2x BCU, and pretty crappy skills because the mirror is currently two months old, and I haven't been training on SiSi.
If you slap a DCII on there, my volley would be 960 every 10 seconds... 96 DPS.
Yes, skills will improve that, as will faction or T2 ammo, but that's the volley with a 50% bump to damage right away from frigate V. I definitely think the 20% is needed if they have any hope of doing damage to even a poorly tanked BS.
I don't want bombers to solo BS/BCs, but they should at least be able to put a good hurt on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |