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) |
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:06:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Andrea Griffin I have been reading the responses in this thread for a while, and just decided to toss my two isk in.
I personally don't have any torpedo experience. My main is an Amarr pilot, and I trained up missiles only for the purpose of flying a bomber. I don't mind training up another missile type - I'll survive, it makes me more flexible. I'm sure a lot of the people whining here are the same people who use the old and tired "adapt or die" line but just can't take the heat themselves when THEIR toy is being altered.
If nothing else, it is further encouragement for me to cross-train into Caldari ships - already have some missile skills, all I need now are some shield skills.
The capability to warp in cloaked is, in my opinion, a great boost to the bomber's capabilities. AFAIC, it was the one boost that it really needed. The problem is that 30 second re-cloaking delay. A bomber is too paper thin to remain vulnerable for so long, which will probably lead to "Warp in, Fire, Warp out" tactics. If the volly damage was high enough I would be okay with this, but it doesn't appear to be the case. The bomber's cloak IS its tank. It needs that cloaking ability.
If the trade-off between the CovOps cloak is that 30 second delay, the bomber would be better off with the original speed bonus for cloaking and no re-cloaking delay.
If it received a signature bonus to MWD use (or give it an even smaller base signature radius), similar to what interceptors get, that might help too - then at least it could speed/sig tank until it could recloak. But honestly, at that point, if it is able to effectively speed tank then there isn't much need for the cloak at all. It would turn into 'Interceptor With Torpedoes' and I'm not sure that is what people want (or is it?). What would an interceptor be able to do that a bomber couldn't at this point?
It could still be tackled by an interceptor, or neuted, which seems like a good tradeoff. It would be vulnerable to a gang with some fast ships or a neut boat, but quite deadly to a solo battleship as long as it doesn't get drone aggression.
I'm curious to see how this will perform against cruisers with a painter (or two) applied. I'm going to jump on Sisi later tonight and play around with the ship once my account there trains up torpedoes. Or, would a GM be able to give me a skill adjustment so that I could test immediately?
The idea that had been mentioned earlier about allowing it to fit a citadel launcher is intreagueing.
Thanks!
Survivability has been my biggest concern, this ship needs something to be able to stay in the heat of the fight and escape. We'll need much more PG/CPU to actually fit a tank and a MWD and still have EW options. If you intend this ship to be in a battle with something that has way more HP and fire power it needs to be able to live through the engagement. Also, the damage done should be increase so it doesn't take 10+ SBs to take out a single ship of ANY TYPE (frigs, cruiser,BCs etc etc).
what I'd like to see is a major increase to explosion velocity, explosion radius, and damage. I'd like to have the cov-ops cloak just so we can be I don't know STEALTHY! But with the 30 second recloak that kinda kills the purpose of the cloak. Also, I want a window to pop up and tell me where the solo battleships are, since they never are on the field unless it's a fleet fight.
If you intend on these being fleet ship, a BS with a cloak would be better on all points than a stealth bomber. |
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:28:00 -
[392]
CCP Chronotis - I hope you are still reading. We are testing everynight on SISI. The current bomber is not up with what you have posted at the start of this post. Please post and let us know you are there and also when will the second set of values be on SISI. Feeling like we are in a desert again on this subject send us some hope you are there.
Black
|
Pedro Sangre
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:32:00 -
[393]
Originally by: DNSBLACK CCP Chronotis - I hope you are still reading. We are testing everynight on SISI. The current bomber is not up with what you have posted at the start of this post. Please post and let us know you are there and also when will the second set of values be on SISI. Feeling like we are in a desert again on this subject send us some hope you are there.
Black
He posted earlier that he would let us know when it was available. Since (as you noted) it's not done yet, it should be little surprise that he hasn't said anything yet :)
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:33:00 -
[394]
Having thought about this over night I must conclude that these changes are fail. As others have said, a bomber in torp range with a 30 second recloak timer is a dead bomber, unless their tank is radically reworked. Their current role with cruise is just fine, don't take that away ( and waste our sp in cruise ). If you want to see bombers used more to kill bs, isn't that what BOMBS were for? Fix BOMBS.
As for the CoC, I have said before that having to warp in cloaked negates the whole element of surprise, but if bombers get the CoC, why would I ever fly a cov ops again? If bombers are to get the CoC then cov ops must get some new unique role to justify not having the damage capability of bombers. Something like the ability to detect recent warp trails and follow them, like fighters do.
Leave everything else about them alone and just fix the bombs. They are BOMBERS, so they should want to use bombs. Let them fit 3 bomb launchers instead of just 1. Cut the reactivation time on bomb launchers in half. Cut the cost of the bombs at least in half. Maybe lower their damage a bit to compensate. Having 3 launchers that each hit half as hard will be much better because then you have more options. You could load 3 damage bombs, or 2 damage and one lockbreaker, or go for a lockbreaker and two cap bombs. And their current reactivation delay means one bomb per engagement and that's it. Only firing one shot and then feeling useless for the rest of the fight is no fun.
|
Amberle Vale
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:49:00 -
[395]
Originally by: Seishomaru
Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
I hear this works with titans as well.
|
Wang King
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:07:00 -
[396]
Its clear that ccp have decided on a different role for this ship than it is currently being used for, ie the covert attack of POS's along side the Black ops BS's and Recon ships.
I am still at aloss as to why you see a need to have these only use the siege launchers these ships are far to race specific (ie caldari) in this state, knocking back a good portion of the player base from wanting to fly them, so what is going to happen?
I can take a wild guess, you will put all this effort into changing them only for them to be used less than they are currently, they will have a stigma about them, the ship that was changed from a fun small gang skirmish 'boat' to a pos blobbing large alliance brown nosing 'ship'.
The Black ops 'fleet' (ie, blacks ops, recons, stealth bombers) needs to be further looked into as a whole combat option, as i see it the black ops BS' are beyond nerfed, the recon ships are Ewar boats and the new design stealthbombers are designed to take down pos structures.
If CCP's idea is to make the whole of the clandestine ships in eve based around taking down cyno jammers, then you really need to have a look inside yourselves and inside your game, where does most of the actual in game combat occur and what are the reasons behind it..
Bringing more ships into the covert line would be nice (BC's, destroyers) but you need to be more clear with us about what you are trying to achieve, and you need to be more clear with yourselve what your motives are for doing it.
When i saw the initial changes, i just saw a cluster****, now i see what you are trying to achieve i like where your coming from but not how. You are basically removing a ship from the game and substituting it with something completely different. Not a great way of doing things, stealthbombers need improvements but not a complete role change, you need to bring in a new ship in to fill this new role that you have created by adding cyno jammers to the game.
How about them BC's ya know the tier2 ones, fit them with BS size weapons, COCD, remove some lows and mids, call them a heavy bomber, ability to fit 2 bomb launchers or something. They would suit the role far better, why send a frigate to do a Battleships job?
|
Sebastien LaForge
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:16:00 -
[397]
Originally by: Seishomaru
Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....[/quote
wow, only 20 target painters and a t2 torp! Come back when you've got a situation that has the possibility of occurring in this game.
That is to say, if you've already got 10 ships firing at an interceptor with two mods of their choice, that interceptor is going to die. Hell, just have everyonee carry light drones and there won't even be a need to lose slots from the ships!
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:20:00 -
[398]
Originally by: Pedro Sangre
Originally by: DNSBLACK CCP Chronotis - I hope you are still reading. We are testing everynight on SISI. The current bomber is not up with what you have posted at the start of this post. Please post and let us know you are there and also when will the second set of values be on SISI. Feeling like we are in a desert again on this subject send us some hope you are there.
Black
He posted earlier that he would let us know when it was available. Since (as you noted) it's not done yet, it should be little surprise that he hasn't said anything yet :)
sisi now looks to be up to date with the post (20% torpedo damage, velocity, 10% torpedo explosion velocity and 5% bomb damage along with fitting covert ops cloaks)
If you are not getting these bonuses, please reply with which ship and which bonus you think is not working.
Will reply later on to the other posts and feedback when we have had chance to read over it.
|
|
Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:45:00 -
[399]
Originally by: BetaZ There are legal issues here (false advertising, bait and switch, product misrepresentation, etc). CCP can try to stand behind their ToS, but ToS's are not codified in stone in the court of laws.
This change is a conscious and unnecessary change with financial consequences--it takes time to retrain and retraining cost actual money.
CCP should at least give it some thoughts. We, the customers, should also not allow CCP to unilaterally "extend" our subscriptions through coercion.
WARNING! Internet space ships lawyer coming in hot!
|
retro's sister
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:48:00 -
[400]
Edited by: retro''s sister on 01/04/2009 17:49:22
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Pedro Sangre
Originally by: DNSBLACK CCP Chronotis -
Will reply later on to the other posts and feedback when we have had chance to read over it.
CCP Chronotis: I dispair at the lack of interaction with your customers who are making some valid points about keeping the existing cruse bomber and creating a new class with the proposed changes.
|
|
Sebastien LaForge
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:50:00 -
[401]
Edited by: Sebastien LaForge on 01/04/2009 17:52:05 I wouldn't be adverse to a heavy bomber frig as long as it's a new ship or melded into the current bomber without the loss of it's current bonuses and role against medium sized targets. I'm not looking to solo pwn small and mediuum ships, it's more that I don't want a ship I've trained for and really only prefer to fly in pvp is getting crammed into a role I've never seen an opportunity for!
More cloaked velocity and explosion velocity bonus is all I wanted to make the bomber perfect for me :(
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:07:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Sebastien LaForge Edited by: Sebastien LaForge on 01/04/2009 17:18:36
Originally by: Seishomaru
Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
wow, only 20 target painters and a t2 torp! Come back when you've got a situation that has the possibility of occurring in this game.
That is to say, if you've already got 10 ships firing at an interceptor with two mods of their choice, that interceptor is going to die. Hell, just have everyonee carry light drones and there won't even be a need to lose slots from the ships!
If you are so short sighted you cannto see that is an exagerated example (firign a siege on a ceptor) and that is can be handled by an equivalent exagerated employment of the proposed solution.. then you maybe should stop posting.
It jsut ilustrates taht QR changes are something most players still fail to understand, and taht now TP are VERY effective way to solve the EXPLOSION VELOCITY issue.
You can escalate it down very well down to 3 TP and Torpedoes against a HAC. OR 3 TP against a typhoon with AB on.. always beign enough to achieve full damage.
|
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:14:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Seishomaru
Originally by: Sebastien LaForge Edited by: Sebastien LaForge on 01/04/2009 17:18:36
Originally by: Seishomaru
Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
wow, only 20 target painters and a t2 torp! Come back when you've got a situation that has the possibility of occurring in this game.
That is to say, if you've already got 10 ships firing at an interceptor with two mods of their choice, that interceptor is going to die. Hell, just have everyonee carry light drones and there won't even be a need to lose slots from the ships!
If you are so short sighted you cannto see that is an exagerated example (firign a siege on a ceptor) and that is can be handled by an equivalent exagerated employment of the proposed solution.. then you maybe should stop posting.
It jsut ilustrates taht QR changes are something most players still fail to understand, and taht now TP are VERY effective way to solve the EXPLOSION VELOCITY issue.
You can escalate it down very well down to 3 TP and Torpedoes against a HAC. OR 3 TP against a typhoon with AB on.. always beign enough to achieve full damage.
You silly boy, I am sure that in a perfect world 3 target painters would be pointed at every target. In the real world, unless you are in a huge alliance caldari fleet (so no this wouldnt happen- we all know that fleets are armour tanked) then you are talking about a really hypothetical situation.
One question, why are you trying so hard to defend your statement?
|
Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:27:00 -
[404]
I really like the idea of Torpedos and don't really mind if thats all they can launch, but all the SB really needed was the covert ops cloak, more cpu and pg (so it can fit t2 launchers) and some tweaking to the bonuses so the cruise missiles hit small mobile ships with more lethal force.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:29:00 -
[405]
Edited by: DiseL on 01/04/2009 18:30:28
Originally by: Seishomaru Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
You might want to do a little game mechanics research! Target Painters are stacking nerfed based on numbers applied to the target. The 5th TP gives about 2% sig bonus and after that pretty much zero. Same with Remote Sensor Damps. There is quite a bit of math, game mechanics talk, formula's, and EFT knowledge being thrown around here but little real world experience. Go on SIS and test some of these theories. I perma tanked 5 stealth bombers last night in a Hawk with an AB having 5 TP's applied. One of the bombers even fit a web and it still took quite some time for them to kill me (6 vollies x 5 bombers). This was in an engagement where I orbited in the Hawk without trying to get away. I would have been out of bomber range easily before dying if I chose to do so.
|
Erichk Knaar
Caldari Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:38:00 -
[406]
Originally by: DiseL
You might want to do a little game mechanics research! Target Painters are stacking nerfed based on numbers applied to the target. The 5th TP gives about 2% sig bonus and after that pretty much zero. Same with Remote Sensor Damps. There is quite a bit of math, game mechanics talk, formula's, and EFT knowledge being thrown around here but little real world experience. Go on SIS and test some of these theories. I perma tanked 5 stealth bombers last night in a Hawk with an AB having 5 TP's applied. One of the bombers even fit a web and it still took quite some time for them to kill me (6 vollies x 5 bombers). This was in an engagement where I orbited in the Hawk without trying to get away. I would have been out of bomber range easily before dying if I chose to do so.
I wonder what would have happened if you'd decided to try and kill the bombers.
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:40:00 -
[407]
Originally by: DiseL Edited by: DiseL on 01/04/2009 18:30:28
Originally by: Seishomaru Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
You might want to do a little game mechanics research! Target Painters are stacking nerfed based on numbers applied to the target. The 5th TP gives about 2% sig bonus and after that pretty much zero. Same with Remote Sensor Damps. There is quite a bit of math, game mechanics talk, formula's, and EFT knowledge being thrown around here but little real world experience. Go on SIS and test some of these theories. I perma tanked 5 stealth bombers last night in a Hawk with an AB having 5 TP's applied. One of the bombers even fit a web and it still took quite some time for them to kill me (6 vollies x 5 bombers). This was in an engagement where I orbited in the Hawk without trying to get away. I would have been out of bomber range easily before dying if I chose to do so.
And I'm sure the devs don't see that as a problem at all.
Would it not be a bad idea to roll some EW bonuses to this new cov ops platform? Base it on race specific EW and a small gang of these can be very deadly. And the 30 second re-cloak may be the only hang up I have as long as I can still pick off cruisers in a reasonable time, I don't see very many (read that as NONE) battleships while roaming. And if I know I am going to run into a battleship I'll be damned if I am taking an untankable ship up against them.
P.S. How the hell do you get your current skills copied over to the test server. |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:58:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 01/04/2009 19:02:51
Originally by: Vall Kor
Originally by: DiseL Edited by: DiseL on 01/04/2009 18:30:28
Originally by: Seishomaru Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
You might want to do a little game mechanics research! Target Painters are stacking nerfed based on numbers applied to the target. The 5th TP gives about 2% sig bonus and after that pretty much zero. Same with Remote Sensor Damps. There is quite a bit of math, game mechanics talk, formula's, and EFT knowledge being thrown around here but little real world experience. Go on SIS and test some of these theories. I perma tanked 5 stealth bombers last night in a Hawk with an AB having 5 TP's applied. One of the bombers even fit a web and it still took quite some time for them to kill me (6 vollies x 5 bombers). This was in an engagement where I orbited in the Hawk without trying to get away. I would have been out of bomber range easily before dying if I chose to do so.
And I'm sure the devs don't see that as a problem at all.
Would it not be a bad idea to roll some EW bonuses to this new cov ops platform? Base it on race specific EW and a small gang of these can be very deadly. And the 30 second re-cloak may be the only hang up I have as long as I can still pick off cruisers in a reasonable time, I don't see very many (read that as NONE) battleships while roaming. And if I know I am going to run into a battleship I'll be damned if I am taking an untankable ship up against them.
P.S. How the hell do you get your current skills copied over to the test server.
Three points come out of this exchange.
1: An ABing assault frigate is very survivable against the new flavor of SB. I think I should mention that that is EXACTLY the vulnerability the new design is aimed at. Seems to be pretty much on target. That particular ship, along with ceptors, would be called the intended counter to stealth bombers... one which they could effortlessly avoid. The AFs role in this situation is to deter the SBs from engaging whatever the AF is escorting... which is exactly the role of the AF. Now if that AF warped in on the SB group in mid attack and caught them unaware, at least some of them would be in big trouble until they cloaked/warped out. Again, pretty much defines both ship classes perfectly.
2: If what you primarily face are roaming HAC gangs, then the SB is a bad choice to hop into. Of course, this was the case before as well. You might find it interesting that in many areas of space small battleship/battle cruiser groups are common place. And yes, finding a lone BS is not that difficult either as they are a popular choice for ratting and mission running.
3: Some of the more impassioned protesters have not tested the suggested changes. Nor indeed have ever tested anything so as to give an informed opinion. That comes out a bit harsh I'm afraid. Admitting that you aren't sure how Sisi works is far preferable to those pretending to have tested the changes and have in reality not.
===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you. |
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:08:00 -
[409]
I would never train torps just for this ship, leave it with the cruises or allow both, or back a 2nd ship.
Damn, just put torps on a t2 destroyer (heavy bomber)
The SB needs to retain its range, otherwise it will get owned.
You want it to be a BS killer? joke.
Imagine a typical bs vs bs battle...there are usually support flying around too (dictors, inties, recons, hacs)
the SB wouldnt be able to participate in real combat. We all know those rogue pilots that just like killing the easy **** nearby rather than the primary.
You drop a SB into any fleet fight and it will get wtfowned within seconds. Even when it had range, you would have to keep a keen eye on the range of the closest ship. As soon as you see an inty going 5k burning towards you, you better hit the warp button (if your aligned hopfully).
The only thing i see the SB doing is killing solo ratters with small roaming gangs.
btw all this talk about POS bashing black ops/cloak ships makes me laugh. Can you imagine a DD killing 40 blackops + bo support? lol...
in short- leave cruise missles as a viable option.
about the cov ops cloak, i would prefer having the cloaked speed- its a nice perk. Having both would be very cool too. I would be so tempted to use it, but torps? no
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:08:00 -
[410]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 01/04/2009 19:08:43
Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 01/04/2009 19:02:51
Three points come out of this exchange.
1: An ABing assault frigate is very survivable against the new flavor of SB. I think I should mention that that is EXACTLY the vulnerability the new design is aimed at. Seems to be pretty much on target. That particular ship, along with ceptors, would be called the intended counter to stealth bombers... one which they could effortlessly avoid. The AFs role in this situation is to deter the SBs from engaging whatever the AF is escorting... which is exactly the role of the AF. Now if that AF warped in on the SB group in mid attack and caught them unaware, at least some of them would be in big trouble until they cloaked/warped out. Again, pretty much defines both ship classes perfectly.
2: If what you primarily face are roaming HAC gangs, then the SB is a bad choice to hop into. Of course, this was the case before as well. You might find it interesting that in many areas of space small battleship/battle cruiser groups are common place. And yes, finding a lone BS is not that difficult either as they are a popular choice for ratting and mission running.
3: Some of the more impassioned protesters have not tested the suggested changes. Nor indeed have ever tested anything so as to give an informed opinion. That comes out a bit harsh I'm afraid. Admitting that you aren't sure how Sisi works is far preferable to those pretending to have tested the changes and have in reality not.
I've done some damage testing, but my missile support skills are behind where I am on live, and if this new cov-ops ship is useless against cruisers and the like then I'll not have a reason to fly one. I use my bomber as anti-support, so I'll have to figure out another ship to use instead. Somebody has to shoo those pesky falcons off the field. |
|
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:14:00 -
[411]
Originally by: Ranger 1
1: An ABing assault frigate is very survivable against the new flavor of SB. I think I should mention that that is EXACTLY the vulnerability the new design is aimed at. Seems to be pretty much on target. That particular ship, along with ceptors, would be called the intended counter to stealth bombers... one which they could effortlessly avoid. The AFs role in this situation is to deter the SBs from engaging whatever the AF is escorting... which is exactly the role of the AF. Now if that AF warped in on the SB group in mid attack and caught them unaware, at least some of them would be in big trouble until they cloaked/warped out. Again, pretty much defines both ship classes perfectly.
Look, a solo BS would simply own SB's with drones. I think someone on this thread did some calculations with 5 sb on 1 rokh. The rokh would be able to kill them a few times over before they kill it. They also tested how long it would take to even kill the drones, killing 1 took more time than the drones to kill the SB.
So tell me, I guess SB need to be flying with falcons to kill BS's right?
Oh right and ONLY battleships.
The idea doesnt work- if they would just leave the cruises EVERYONE would be happy.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:16:00 -
[412]
Originally by: DiseL Edited by: DiseL on 01/04/2009 18:30:28
Originally by: Seishomaru Learn properly the new game mechanics and discover that QR was a huge BOOST to missiles. Just get a ceptor put 10 people with 2 TP each on the ceptor and throw 1 rage torp on it.... rejoice.....
You might want to do a little game mechanics research! Target Painters are stacking nerfed based on numbers applied to the target. The 5th TP gives about 2% sig bonus and after that pretty much zero. Same with Remote Sensor Damps. There is quite a bit of math, game mechanics talk, formula's, and EFT knowledge being thrown around here but little real world experience. Go on SIS and test some of these theories. I perma tanked 5 stealth bombers last night in a Hawk with an AB having 5 TP's applied. One of the bombers even fit a web and it still took quite some time for them to kill me (6 vollies x 5 bombers). This was in an engagement where I orbited in the Hawk without trying to get away. I would have been out of bomber range easily before dying if I chose to do so.
Would not that be a simple matter of asking Devs to remove stack penalties on such a module? Anyway.. Siege vs a hawk is a bit of stretching the realistic options. Against a cruiser woudl be more realistic. 4 TP gives 240% sig increase ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:27:00 -
[413]
I read that someone said the counter to SB are frigs and assault frigs. Well I will tell you this every ship is a counter to a SB. List below are a few
HACS DRONES CEPTORS BS RECONS Hell every combat ship in the game can counter a SB.
So please dont sell this as intanded. I hope it is not cause if this is the case then I want the SB to alpha crusers 2 volly BC and 5 volly BS.
|
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:34:00 -
[414]
Chronitis, we're still waiting for an answer to a very simple question:
On what server are stealth bomber pilots in the business of attacking battleships?
Are you getting this bizarre notion from the Chinese server? Or is it a special, devs-only, everything-is-upside-down server, where black is white, Republicans love poor minorities, and sheep aren't nervous?
Can you please explain why I'd bring a ship with under 1k hp to shoot a battleship, instead of my T2 large neutron gank Megathron, or a dual-repper Dominix?
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:44:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Zantaz
Can you please explain why I'd bring a ship with under 1k hp to shoot a battleship, instead of my T2 large neutron gank Megathron, or a dual-repper Dominix?
Bcos they cant warp cloaked nor can they use black ops bridges to jump into jammed system ? Not saying that SB are perfect, just that there is no reason to bring one if you actually can field something bigger. If you cant then they would be better than nothing.
|
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:49:00 -
[416]
Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 19:51:26
Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: Zantaz
Can you please explain why I'd bring a ship with under 1k hp to shoot a battleship, instead of my T2 large neutron gank Megathron, or a dual-repper Dominix?
Bcos they cant warp cloaked nor can they use black ops bridges to jump into jammed system ? Not saying that SB are perfect, just that there is no reason to bring one if you actually can field something bigger. If you cant then they would be better than nothing.
Im afraid Carniflex is right. The other reason is because they dont use up much fuel due to their size. . .
However I still think that just making a torp bomber a sister ship to the Cruise bomber makes perfect sense. Many Bomber Pilots like the cruise bomber in its current format. . .
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:50:00 -
[417]
Chronotis, there is an issue that as far as I could read the thread seems to have not been addressed by anybody, but to me seems pretty showstopping.
1) With the introduction of the covop cloak you are apparently trying to increase the stealth bomber the ability to hit by surprise.
2) However, at the same time, the new role of stealth bombers is to supply more firepower to other ship classes.
It seems the two capabilities are conflicting. On one hand you give "stealth" capabilities to the ship, but on the other hand you want it to be useful only in contexts where its stelathiness is blown up by the company of other non-stealth ships. What am I missing?
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:57:00 -
[418]
I find it weird that a frig size ship is supposed to be a bomber to hurt battleships. I would think we would have a Cruiser sized bomber to hit battleships then the SB would be focused on quick heavy damage to cruisers.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:08:00 -
[419]
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. |
Chinchek
4 wing Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:26:00 -
[420]
Edited by: Chinchek on 01/04/2009 20:28:52 Edited by: Chinchek on 01/04/2009 20:27:39
edits: typo i would like to read CCP's LOGICALreason for this change, i just dont get it, i am happy flying the ship until i read this joke from the last thread. well i guess ill just cherish the each moment until the change occurs. -Increase Cloak velocity is cool -Fixing cruise missiles is great
im a little old for this but.. please don't take our toys away
|
|
|
|
|
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 |