EVE Search - Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Nymysys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:06:00 - [91] Originally by: Vall Kor Kinda kills the point of being "anti-" anything if you can not complete your mission in one - three volleys, and then live to tell about. if not then wouldn't it be better to use a recon ship to warp in some Torp Ravens or Scorpions (the updated Scorp)? They have the tank to stay in the fight for more than 1 volley and may actually kill the target BS before dieing. SB's only one-shot things under specific circumstances pre-missile nerf. That capability is gone for good. An SB with three bomb launchers can do around 24k racial dmg alpha strike on a BS at CovOps 5. I see that as being helpful in both a fleet and small gang. Its balanced by the fact you can only carry one reload, and the short engagement range; bombs allow greater survivability by allowing the SB to leave grid after bomb deployment, as long as your are aligned and warp immediately. If CCP wants to force the SB into an anti-big ship role, this is a balanced way, I think.
Yuki Li Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:19:00 - [92] Looks like an excellent idea to me. Please stop presuming you're supposed to be soloing battleships with these, and consider the effectiveness when used in groups supporting other light ships. A gang of Interceptors supported by bombers would be a lot of fun I imagine. Website Recruiting
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:21:00 - [93] Originally by: Nymysys Originally by: Vall Kor Kinda kills the point of being "anti-" anything if you can not complete your mission in one - three volleys, and then live to tell about. if not then wouldn't it be better to use a recon ship to warp in some Torp Ravens or Scorpions (the updated Scorp)? They have the tank to stay in the fight for more than 1 volley and may actually kill the target BS before dieing. SB's only one-shot things under specific circumstances pre-missile nerf. That capability is gone for good. An SB with three bomb launchers can do around 24k racial dmg alpha strike on a BS at CovOps 5. I see that as being helpful in both a fleet and small gang. Its balanced by the fact you can only carry one reload, and the short engagement range; bombs allow greater survivability by allowing the SB to leave grid after bomb deployment, as long as your are aligned and warp immediately. If CCP wants to force the SB into an anti-big ship role, this is a balanced way, I think. That would work if you could drop and run/cloak. But we're talking torps here. The devs have a major hard on for torps at the moment. And unless those SBs can pop a BS with out dying, it'd be better off it they were in BSes actually applying DPS to a target with a chance to live longer than 10seconds.
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:24:00 - [94] Chronitis, Man you guys have no idea how happy I am you guys are listening to your players this time around. Really, mad props. :) However, I want to point out that it is not "winsauce" if they have to be within 20-40km to launch. One volley is not going to really be enough to make it worthwhile. IMO, cruises or torps - or better yet make the T2 torp spewing monsters of doom another kind of destroyer. I've been looking for a reason to have trained up Destro 5. :) -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:27:00 - [95] Originally by: Yuki Li Looks like an excellent idea to me. Please stop presuming you're supposed to be soloing battleships with these, and consider the effectiveness when used in groups supporting other light ships. A gang of Interceptors supported by bombers would be a lot of fun I imagine. Nobody thinks you're supposed to be solo'ing battleships, but its not unreasonable to expect a bit of survivability from them once they've entered the fray. They are T2 ships, and will be running 20M+ isk a pop. Previously their entire tank was range... and quite honestly, the only thing that really needs adjusted is the addition of the covops cloak. As things stand, I'd currently put money on my pest taking out half a dozen of these guys before going down - and the odds get so much worse the more BS's there are around. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:27:00 - [96] Originally by: Yuki Li Looks like an excellent idea to me. Please stop presuming you're supposed to be soloing battleships with these, and consider the effectiveness when used in groups supporting other light ships. A gang of Interceptors supported by bombers would be a lot of fun I imagine. Provided the Bombers survive after the first volley and that Battleship doesn't have a good enough fleet with him. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Nymysys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:38:00 - [97] Originally by: Vall Kor That would work if you could drop and run/cloak. But we're talking torps here. The devs have a major hard on for torps at the moment. And unless those SBs can pop a BS with out dying, it'd be better off it they were in BSes actually applying DPS to a target with a chance to live longer than 10seconds. My idea is centered around bombs, not torps. If they want to use torps, they will have to increase velocity/damage alot more than what they have stated so far. With the current modifications, torps will not add meaningful damage to the target. The only weapon system that would have the effect they intend is multiple bomb launchers. Ideally, they would take the current SB, tweak it to make it just like it was pre missile nerf, and add the capability to mount multiple bomb launchers. I think they planned the capablity to fit three bomb launchers at the beginning, but were afraid it would be a bit overpowered. However, its really the only way anyone would fly an SB in the role they intend for it. Lower the cost of bombs (like to 1 mil each), make "precision" bombs variants that have a much reduced AOE (1k would be ideal) so that you are not wiping your tacklers off the map (and make you have to aim better) and we would be good to go. It would allow the heavy ship role they want, while still allowing for the annoying fun factor of long range cruise missiles.
Psycho Johnny	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:42:00 - [98] Edited by: Psycho Johnny on 30/03/2009 19:44:56 What kind of tank are the devs going to allow SBs? Since SB are now close range brawlers, you are upping the CPU/PG to use 1600mm plates and large reppers correct?? If not how is an SB supposed to live inside of 30KM? And if you are not planning on allowing any tank on the SB you do plan on making them immune to drone damage correct? If not WTF are you thinking trying to force and SB into close range combat???????? Apparently the 15+ pages of us not wanting torps wasn't enough for you to listen. Why even bother "discussing" this change with us???? There has to be trade off for damage, but there also as to be trade offs for being forced into close range combat i.e. TANK. You have to be delusional to think an SB is going to be effective in drone range.
Ruoska	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:48:00 - [99] Originally by: Thenoran Originally by: Vall Kor Originally by: Thenoran Originally by: Nymysys You get in close, aligned to a celestial or other warp out target, drop cloak, fire, hit, and warp. You then warp back in at distance, cloak, and have another go at it. Get real, your DPS will not only be pathetic, but with 30 second recloak delay you might end having to warp in uncloaked. Against Battleships you'd have to warp in and out 30-40+ times assuming nothing else attacks it and it decides not to warp out and giggle. Only when you can actually Alpha something or you're about get hit does warping out have any purpose. And the BS is AFK! And untanked with no Damage Control but leaving the MWD on for sig bonus. YES! YES! Now you're getting Chronotis'es vision! I knew you guys would eventually see the light. Seriously, truly gigantic volley damage increase HAS TO BE HAD if this peg legged idea is to float at all. start at +500% and increase until flying this starts to make sense.
Psycho Johnny	Posted - 2009.03.30 19:51:00 - [100] Quote: YES! YES! Now you're getting Chronotis'es vision! I knew you guys would eventually see the light. Seriously, truly gigantic volley damage increase HAS TO BE HAD if this peg legged idea is to float at all. start at +500% and increase until flying this starts to make sense. hmm wonder which dev got owned by an SB to force this change. I've always considers SBs anti-support... Leave the battleships to fight the battleships.

Nymysys GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:10:00 - [101] Originally by: Thenoran Provided the Bombers survive after the first volley and that Battleship doesn't have a good enough fleet with him. If you are flying it right, a bomber will not be visible on grid long enough for you to target it.
A lifetaker	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:11:00 - [102] I like the covops cloack idea but if it means 30sec recloack delay no thanx. i would rather have improved cloack and speed bonus tbh. But if you wanna change it here are some ideas: 1.)make bombers able to fit 3 bomb launchers, make them come out the back of the bomber so they don't bump you leaving you to die in your own trap and make them cheaper. 2.)give the bombers the ability to lock cloacked (to start with locking) once the target is locked you uncloack and you do your damage. 3.) if you give them torps, give them a BIG range bonus so they can be used in longer ranges then 54KM, that way people can stay a bit safer away from drones. cause a rack of T2 light drones will melt you very VERY fast. I would love to see the bombs being actually usefull, would really change the ship, cause if you give the options cruise or bombs, you can pick between short range AoE or long range single target. Then let the torp idea go, and you have a different role for the ship but all the people who trained T2 cruise missiles for it don't have wasted SP. this way everybody should be happy my 2 cents
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:11:00 - [103] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 30/03/2009 20:16:01 You guys have your ship modularity tech now right ? Well then USE it. People like thier torps or cruises and can choose between 2 offensive modules. People like their explosion V bonus or cloaked speed bonus, give that to the electronics module. Just make 2 different modules that dont have any visual effects tied to the ships we have now. Offensive siege module : Bonus to siege launcher fitting and torp dmg Offensive cruise module : Bonus to cruise launcher fitting and cruise dmg Electronics Target prediction module : Bonus to cruise and torp explosion velocity Electronics Stealth subspace navigation module : Bonus to cloaked velocity I also missed the part where bombs get 99.5% resistance to all dmg types.
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:11:00 - [104] Originally by: Cailais Edited by: Cailais on 30/03/2009 18:14:41 Originally by: Nyxus CCP stated goal: The role of a stealthy glass cannon is to ambush and deliver a large amount of firepower through volleys of torpedoes onto large targets. Citadel bombers would still have range, but slow flight times balance this by forcing the bomber to stay uncloaked mitigating the need for a large reactivation delay. Total volley damage is approximately the same, but a Citadel Bomber would still have the option to fit for anti drones or a bomb launcher. Finally, shooting Citadel Torps out of a frig is omgwtfpwnsauce awesome. This is an interesting view point. It certainly applies a 'time on target' consideration for the SB pilot. Combine this with a cov ops cloak and a sensible cloaked velocity bonus and these ships could be quite interesting to fly. C. But it makes no sense. The citadels are the size of frigs. How do you expact a frig to fire other frigs Bombs (if changed) would be far better.
Nyxus Amarr GALAXIAN	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:38:00 - [105] Originally by: Lindsay Logan Originally by: Cailais Edited by: Cailais on 30/03/2009 18:14:41 Originally by: Nyxus CCP stated goal: The role of a stealthy glass cannon is to ambush and deliver a large amount of firepower through volleys of torpedoes onto large targets. Citadel bombers would still have range, but slow flight times balance this by forcing the bomber to stay uncloaked mitigating the need for a large reactivation delay. Total volley damage is approximately the same, but a Citadel Bomber would still have the option to fit for anti drones or a bomb launcher. Finally, shooting Citadel Torps out of a frig is omgwtfpwnsauce awesome. This is an interesting view point. It certainly applies a 'time on target' consideration for the SB pilot. Combine this with a cov ops cloak and a sensible cloaked velocity bonus and these ships could be quite interesting to fly. C. But it makes no sense. The citadels are the size of frigs. How do you expact a frig to fire other frigs Bombs (if changed) would be far better. Bombs are AoE. That's hell to try to balance. Bring down the cost a bit is about the only thing that I can see making it worthwhile but still balanced. After looking at the price of citadel launchers, just modify Bomb launchers to be able to launch citadel torps. Tweak explosion radius and damage bonus and it should be good. The low velocity on Citadel Torps would require the bomber stay uncloaked and only target large ships. It should also make the recloaking delay unnecessary. It would also make them immensely fun, but relatively fragile. It would encourage more mixing of fleets. Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:49:00 - [106] Originally by: Lindsay Logan But it makes no sense. The citadels are the size of frigs. How do you expact a frig to fire other frigs Bombs (if changed) would be far better. Do you know how these ships are built in reality? Let me explain it in clear: Recipe of a tcship, basic version: 1. Get a big tube 2. Loaded it with one HUGE missile 3. Glue some engines, fuel bay, living bays and so on. 4. Add a few self-defences, mainly Ewar kind, to allow ships to GTFO if situation begin to boil. 5. Ergo, you have ship that can 1-shot even a Carrier. Originally by: Vall Kor EDIT: and LOL at the "anti-bs" role.... I'd rather BS be anti-bs. The DPS lost because you wanted to bring SBs is a reason NOT to bring SBs. *Cruises OR torps, not just torps.* Cruises and FIXED bombs, not joke and joke. Originally by: Nyxus Bombs are AoE. That's hell to try to balance. Bring down the cost a bit is about the only thing that I can see making it worthwhile but still balanced. Changing that much easier than killing a whole ship class. Or, you said, just change ammo to fire Citadel torps. Leave one launcher per ship as it is now. MAY BE add AoE effect to the Citadel Torps (that would be interesting change, confirm?) Quote: After looking at the price of citadel launchers, just modify Bomb launchers to be able to launch citadel torps. Tweak explosion radius and damage bonus and it should be good. The low velocity on Citadel Torps would require the bomber stay uncloaked and only target large ships. It should also make the recloaking delay unnecessary. Needs some calculations, I hope it sounds promising, but with 1 launcher per SB it'll fall in the same category as torpedo-bombers. To trash. Quote: It would also make them immensely fun, but relatively fragile. It would encourage more mixing of fleets. Unless four SB could ultimately 2-volley PWN a battleship, it's all about loosing the afterdinner winds. They dealing more damage. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:54:00 - [107] Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 30/03/2009 20:55:24 Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Lindsay Logan But it makes no sense. The citadels are the size of frigs. How do you expact a frig to fire other frigs Bombs (if changed) would be far better. Do you know how these ships are built in reality? No, and neither do you! These ships do not exist in RL. They are pixels in a game . But I knoe engouh about space technology to know that engines make up the biggest part of our current space vessles, and not to speak of other components. A big tube with stuff glued to it is not how it is. And ammo? Only one shot? Torps or Cruises, and bombs are the way to go in EVE, that makes sense.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:55:00 - [108] Originally by: Lindsay Logan No, and neither do you! How could you know? Do you know me IRL? -- Thanks CCP for cu
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.03.30 20:59:00 - [109] i just want to know why the devs are so hard up on us not having a choice in weapon systems? What if we don't want to be a close range brawler in a paper thin ship? What if we prefer being a longer range ship(Hell just keep us out of drone range 70Km would be fine). And do you really for see these in a fleet set up? Wouldn't it make more sense to use battleships in a close range setup (i.e. blasters, autocannons) with recon warp in, since they'd be able to actually TANK and not get insta-popped? Why the sudden change to forcing SBs to use torps? Why not fix bombs or cruise missiles? Why can't we have a choice? You don't force battleships in to long range only? Isn't that a the battleships role, to be a long range weapon platform?? Instead of a slight tweak (which is what is needed) you want an entire overall of the ship, even though the SB community is against the changes. Speaking for myself, I hardly ever run into a BS gang, even when roaming. Are we going to be totally useless now against cruiser and the like? If I am limited to a single ship type to target can we have a refund of the SPs I wasted training for the SB? This is a discussion after all, so discuss with us why you guys are so hard up to give SBs an "anti-battleship role" all of a sudden? "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:04:00 - [110] I have a better idea. Turn bomb launchers into bombs itself. Activating it will produce a huge AoE blast to all nearby ships excluding other SB. However, it'll destroy your ship too (how could you wish to survive sitting on a bomb?) Much better fun that these proposed changes! -- Thanks CCP for cu

yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:05:00 - [111] Reading through this thread and the previous one the pure ingenuity of the pilots compared to the falcon thread is quite something. -> Scout ship with support DPS -> Decloak/fire/recloak brawlers -> Ranged ECCM -> Ewar tag team with dictor support I can add a few we've tried over the years such as the tanked bait cruiser in a belt surrounded by cloaked bombers and the plate fit surprise tackle hound. CCP please understand that the people who have been appealing against this change have spent hours staring vacantly at their office wall to think up these tactics, many probably load batteries into electrical goods as though they were loading a launcher and have their dreams invaded by an overview and tactical overlay. Like any niche ship it takes time and effort to crawl into that niche and make yourself comfortable but the prize of this effort is a diversity of tactics that is sadly lacking in many other ships, so the question becomes how to preserve this tactical diversity while still catering to CCP's OCD style compulsion to shoe horn every ship into a tactical box with matching SP sink. The answer may be to split the bomber into 2 ships with different target choice: Ship 1 - Chronotis DPS Taxi - aka Stealth Bomber The idea would be to put anti BS weapons like torps and bombs on a cov-ops frigate. The usefulness of these weapons isn't greatly relevant because people will mainly use the ship as a safe means of transport in dangerous space. Once enough of these taxis are in circulation diverse tactics will be ensured for the simple reason that every person in a corp will be able to fly one. Wolfpacks will spontaneously emerge from the resultant horde of 0.0 carebears bearing new found fangs and the happy shopper alliance will be born. The Chronotis DPS Taxi finds itself irresistibly attracted to the vigil and her sexy target painters however love was thwarted when he found out that the vigil has a 5m3 dronebay because it is in fact a marsupial. Ship 2 - The Tactical Frigate - aka back in the day This ranged frigate is prized for its flexibility and ability to punch out at heavy cruises and some lighter vessels, it's cloaked velocity and passive targeting bonuses allowing for great tactical flexibility. It's medium sized range weapons (Caldari = heavy missile, Matari = artillery etc) can hit at cruiser ranges while being considerably faster and lighter than said cruiser equivalent. This ship is favored by people with Yorkshire accents who say things like "when I were a lad it'd be 32 hours a day down t'veldspar mine with nowt but half a can of quaffe for lunch and you'd feel lucky if you got your pod home and your dad'd give you a good speed tanking with t'raven." Seriously Though Tactical flexibility is the hallmark of the current bomber and what i don't want to see is a very fun ship removed from the game. If you really must make the bomber only able to hit BS then please give us all the stuff you've removed back in a new frigate that covers smaller targets please
Tuncan Minmatar Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:31:00 - [112] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Ok, this is *much* better, but still needs some work. Quote: 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak 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. This is fair. My only concern here is getting de-cloaked by objects. With the current covops ships, you can almost immediately re-cloak as soon as you get out of range of the object, but bombers are going to be exposed for a full 30 seconds. Would it be possible to code the delay so it is only triggered once you activate weapons? That way you're still forced to spend a full 30 seconds uncloaked if you want to engage a target, but don't run into problems moving around. Quote: 2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes. This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result. I'm still not happy with this one. There are three fundamental problems here: 1) Torps are redundant. You already have a short-range, high-damage weapon: *bombs. And it's even a weapon that is most effective against battleships. If you fix bombs correctly (most importantly, reduce the absurd cost), the only reason you'd ever need to use torps on a bomber is if you refuse to remove the 0.0-only limitation. 2) Bombers are paper.* Survival odds for a stealth bomber are bad enough as it is, de-cloak within 24km of anything with guns and you'll be in a pod within seconds. The only defense a stealth bomber currently has is its long range, and now you want to take that away? I don't see bombers getting an AF's resists or an interceptor's speed without becoming too powerful, so they really need to keep their range. 3) Wasted skills suck. Since stealth bombers are the only cruise missile ship (or even missile ship at all) for a lot of players, changing them to use torps means wasted SP, especially if they trained T2 cruise. But as I said in the other thread, there is a better way of doing this: 1) Introduce a special bomber-only weapon: covert warhead launcher. You can load one of two options: a) 5x cruise missiles. OR b) 1x bomb. The launcher itself has a very high ROF, meaning if you go with cruise missiles, you will have very good dps as long as your missiles last. However, there are two penalties: a) Small capacity. You do huge dps, but only for a very short time. b) Long reload time. As in, a full minute or so (ideally with just the standard 10 seconds if you reload out of combat to change missile types). Both of these ensure that the stealth bomber is a proper ambush ship: you can do devastating damage in a very short amount of time, but if you don't plan your ambush carefully you're going to find yourself with a very angry target and nothing to shoot back with. QFT
Vaarun Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:32:00 - [113] Originally by: yani dumyat If you really must make the bomber only able to hit BS then please give us all the stuff you've removed back in a new frigate that covers smaller targets please Agreed. The changes you are considering are far more significant than "tweaks" that have been made to other ships in the past. Would it kill CCP to provide us a 3rd covops frigate to encompass this new vision instead of radically changing one of only two we have? I would really like to hear what was WRONG with the old SB's that warranted such a significant change. It seems to me there is a move within CCP to reduce the ranges that combat happens at overall... "To bring order to chaos, one must bring chaos to its knees." -Vaarun
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:36:00 - [114] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Lindsay Logan No, and neither do you! How could you know? Do you know me IRL? Makes no difference, there are no future space ships in the current RL.
Dr Asimov	Posted - 2009.03.30 21:56:00 - [115] This Dev has definitely got his head in the sand or has never used a bomber or has never been involved in direct heavy fighting. A 30 second delay in the ability to cloak is way too long unless your gonna give us the tank of a BC. It is not a fair trade off for the use of a cov ops cloaking device. Ditch that idea the current cloaking method works fine. Or if you must do it make it a 10 second delay THAT would be acceptable and fair. Now the part you said "We are looking into improving and focusing bombers to be more bomber like with a more focused target group and bonuses which compliment this role much better." is a bunch of hooey. Bombers should be able to lob more than one bomb at a time they should be able to use thier choice of torps or cruise missles. Ever hear of a RL bomber without a tremendous amount of speed for its delivery? Increase the speed of this ship to be able to get out of lock range of a BS after delivery! These bombers with thier 30 second cloaking delays will not even hit thier targets, the target will warp off and a ceptor will kill them and they will be done. I say 90% of these ships will die on thier first attack run and after it happens 2-3 times they will not use the bomber again. Change it to 10 seconds and it would be agreeable. Now the range of the Torps is fair but the speed bonus for thier delivery should be upped quite a bit more. Don't limit this ships ability to take out a variety of ships with effectiveness to curtail them to be only useful for large targets and in large numbers is like handcuffing the hands of a police officer. Who in thier right mind in a territorial war wants to field alot of stealth bombers to kill BS when the configuration your suggesting will result in the loss of all thier bombers in the first run when they can effectively to it better with the same number of BS? You Dev's sorely lack in tactical sensibilities of ships. But guess what? You guys won't care and you will continue on your current course and it will be another unwanted screwed up refinement that the Dev's have forced upon us again. YOU DEV'S HAVE NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, WENT WITH THE MAJORITY SO WHY EVEN DISCUSS IT? JUST THROW MORE GARBAGE AT US AND MAKE US BIATCH AND COMPLAIN ABOUT IT EVEN MORE. Feedback forums on changes you make in this game are an utter waste of your time and ours if you dont listen to the community. One ****ed off Purifier Pilot
Breetaai	Posted - 2009.03.30 22:02:00 - [116] Seems to me the option of Cruiser, OR Torpedoes is best. With Torpedoes having limited range, would you want to be within Neutralizer range of these large targets you now are supposed to kill? Faction Torpedoe has 6 sec flight time with 1,500 m/s, or 9km. Add in skills and you get something like 13km right? 10% per level, assuming level 4, gives you 19km. So the 'sniper' frigate now has to engage within Heavy Neutralizer/Warp Disruptor/Light Drone range. I think they will die after the Raven gets a lock on them. Why not just consider damage bonuses to the Cruise Missiles instead of changing weapon types?
Atraxerxes Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit	Posted - 2009.03.30 22:03:00 - [117] Chronotis, Please just leave the SB the hell alone! Nobody has ever said it's over powered, nobody has said it alone needs a change. As I posted in the last thread, SB's are a very easy ship for new pilots to get into. New pilots don't see a lot of BS gangs, or have PoS attacks. This change is change does nothing but take away one more cool ship for pilots under 1 year and give alliances a cheaper alternative to pos destruction warfare, than having to bring in BS's. There are so many other areas you guys could be spending you time on. I'm not even going to get into how big of a let down this new expansion was. CCP should be focusing on patching the holes in wall that is EVE, not picking out the wallpaper that's going on afterwords. AX "Green isn't a good color for us. I think we'll paint this region BLUE."
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 22:06:00 - [118] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Ok, this is *much* better, but still needs some work. Wrong, it's need a well-fed cow to produce enough crap to bury it as deep as possible. Quote: Quote: 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak 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. This is fair. My only concern here is getting de-cloaked by objects. With the current covops ships, you can almost immediately re-cloak as soon as you get out of range of the object, but bombers are going to be exposed for a full 30 seconds. Which means, they were never been and will never be cloaked. Dead, yes, cloaked - no. Quote: Would it be possible to code the delay so it is only triggered once you activate weapons? That way you're still forced to spend a full 30 seconds uncloaked if you want to engage a target, but don't run into problems moving around. Too many "if"s, EVE server laggy enough by itself, don't you think so? Quote: 1) Torps are redundant. You already have a short-range, high-damage weapon: *bombs. And it's even a weapon that is most effective against battleships. If you fix bombs correctly (most importantly, reduce the absurd cost), the only reason you'd ever need to use torps on a bomber is if you refuse to remove the 0.0-only limitation. This. Quote:* 3) Wasted skills suck. Since stealth bombers are the only cruise missile ship (or even missile ship at all) for a lot of players, changing them to use torps means wasted SP, especially if they trained T2 cruise. Who cares, really Quote: But as I said in the other thread, there is a better way of doing this: 1) Introduce a special bomber-only weapon: covert warhead launcher. You can load one of two options: Why damn if we already have one? Isn't that enough? Just change stats of bomb launcher. Quote: a) 5x cruise missiles. OR b) 1x bomb. The launcher itself has a very high ROF, meaning if you go with cruise missiles, you will have very good dps as long as your missiles last. DPS is nothing for missiles, more, it's a JOKE. Missiles should be Alfa weapon. I'm begin to feel that this would be a root issue with missiles also the proper way to fix them and give them that needed alteration, instead of beeing just delayed guns. Quote: However, there are two penalties: a) Small capacity. You do huge dps, but only for a very short time. Why would I prefer to load a bomb if I can fire cruise missiles for the same or better damage? Assuming that bombs remains AoE, they wouldn't touch a single target hard enough, and I've never been in a position, where AoEing could change anything on a serious scale. Normal distance between ships - 15-20 km, max I can cover by 4 bombs is 2 ships... Perfomance = Result/Effort < 1 Quote: b) Long reload time. As in, a full minute or so (ideally with just the standard 10 seconds if you reload out of combat to change missile types). I've had the same idea, but I've never thought about that in the light of mixing two ammo types in one ship. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 22:19:00 - [119] Originally by: Lindsay Logan Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Lindsay Logan No, and neither do you! How could you know? Do you know me IRL? Makes no difference, there are no future space ships in the current RL. So, that answer was no. Then, please do not make any assumptions based on your lack of knowledge any more. -- Thanks CCP for cu
ShadowMaster56	Posted - 2009.03.30 22:29:00 - [120] Edited by: ShadowMaster56 on 30/03/2009 22:30:14 Originally by: Vall Kor *Cruises OR torps, not just torps.* this, at least they got the cov ops clokeing right



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.