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) |
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:37:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
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.
Confirming that Tonto is indeed an alien with supreme technological knowledge. His ship crashed in my garden and all i saw was a huge missile with appendages.
|
Devasatation
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:49:00 -
[122]
Something like this perhaps? --- Name: Purifier Role: Precision Stealth Bomber Developer: Viziam
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: -15% reduction in Explosion Velocity of Cruise Missiles -15% reduction in Explosion Radius of Cruise Missiles
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 10% Increase in Scan Resolution 200% increase in cloaked velocity
Role Bonus: -99% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs -100% targeting delay after decloaking
---
Name: *whatever* Role: Seige Stealth Bomber Developer: Kahnid
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb EM damage per level 20% bonus to Torpedo EM damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use -100% targeting delay after decloaking -99% Reduction in covert ops cloak cpu use
--- IMO give player the choice of if they want a close range anti-bs brawler like the devs are suggesting, or a long range anti-frigate sniper like we have already. Since half of the people here seem to want the new bombers and the other half want to keep the old ones :\
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:58:00 -
[123]
Bomb launcher. Interesting device as it is (not currently, but it could) Look.
Duration: 26.14-32.68 sec (Leading to 20-25 sec top skills) Capacity: 0.3 (One Citadel Torp or 6x Cruise missiles) Used With: Citadel Torps + Cruise Missiles (Thus NO FoF missiles, leaving it vulnerable to almost any EWar) Charge Rate: 0.33 or 3 - whatever will put it to 30sec reload.
Device Bonus: Doubles the Citadel Torp explosion velocity. Resulting in, for 3x Bomb Launchers fitted and active, with top skills:
43.5 m/s *2 *2 *2 = 348 m/s Fairplay in it's proper position.
Next the ship bonuses. 16.66% reduction in Cruise Missiles and Citadel Torpedoes explosion radius per Racial Frigate. 5% increase in racial missile damage per CO level. 5% increase in Citadel Torpedo velocity per CO level (needed increase, they are slow as hell, really, even with high skills) No damage bonus for Frigate skill - no need when we have really working close-range solution. Impact spot: 176 mm with 348m/s - not gonna instapwn anything. Not with current Missile "Damage" formula. But dangerous, certainly dangerous for bigger targets. BS surely, and even slow BC could fall victim to pack of such beasts. Resulting Volley damage from Citadel Torps: 9281.25 (Note: it's RAW damage, it WILL be mitigated by target's speed and sig radius) Problem is that, if you're using torps, you effectively limiting yourself to one volley per minute. There'll be NO DPS for Torps, unless you shooting a POS or dread in siege - then with all there reloads you could afford to calculate the "DPS" of your launchers. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:03:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Cailais on 30/03/2009 23:04:44 Seeing as there's quite a few opinions on what a stealth bombers role should be why not provide a range of options?
For example:
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to bomb EM damage, Cruise Missile Damage and Torpedo Damage per level.
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: can fit Cov Ops Cloaks multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per Siege Launcher fitted. 2% Bonus to Missile ROF per level.
Role Bonus: -99% reduction in Cruise Launcher & Seige Launcher powergrid needs, -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use and -100% targeting delay after decloaking
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generator
Fit Cruise missiles and you're long range, but slow to manoeuvre, fit siege and your close range with greater mobility. Equally Cruise missile fits are perhaps better in a anti frigate / cruiser attack role, whilst Torps giving the option to fit to engage larger vessels.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
AK Archangel
Warhamsters Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:09:00 -
[125]
Edited by: AK Archangel on 30/03/2009 23:09:36 Say no to torpedos!! .... or SB will be useless class ship... Devs pls leave SB alone just fix cruise missile bonuses.
I can say "yes" to torpedos if SB have a choice for fiting cruise or siege launchers.
|
Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:15:00 -
[126]
If we keep the cloaking re-activation delay and not making the bomb laucher use an independant slot, it should be given one more mid-slot. That way it would be possible to fit more ECM or even shield tank so it could at least tank the drones from 1 or 2 battleships long enough to be able to see their torps hit the target then gtfo.
Fitting torps means I already can drop at least 2 sensor boosters from my Nemesis setup. Which frees up slots for more tank or ECM.
For example, I am only familiar with the Nemesis, but I believe most other bombers have the same high slot layout; 5 high slots, 3 missile and 2 turrets. This usually leaves me with an empty or near-useless high slot as I fit 3 cruise launchers and a cloak. I would suggest remove a high slot on the SB and add a mid slot.
|
Toyo Italari
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:16:00 -
[127]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. [/quote
This is the only problem I have. I would far, far rather use an Improved Cloak II and be unable to warp cloaked, with the old 5 second reactivation delay.
One of the main complaints in the last thread was being too much of a target while up close and personal. A 30 second delay makes that far more likely.
The explosion velocity and damage bonuses are much more in-line with being capable of doing significant enough damage to matter, but considering they still have (and shouldn't have) a tank -other- than cloak, they'll simply drop like flies the moment they release their first volley. The only thing I can think of to prevent that is warping away then warping back.
I'd still prefer a choice there: IC II (even without current velocity bonus) and 5 second re-cloak delay or use Cov Ops and gain both cloak-warp and higher cloaked speed (since there's no penalty) but 30 second re-cloak delay.
|
Solidatus
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:17:00 -
[128]
I'm against the changes in general... but!
What about introducing FOF torpedos? No need to target. Just get close, uncloak, spam in general direction of your enemy battleship, and GTFO. You'd need to give them enough AI that they'd go after whatever around had the largest signature. . . and make them work after you warp out.
Give a torp velocity and ROF bonus, keep the covops cloak and the recloak timer.
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 23:28:00 -
[129]
I'm very pleased with the way these ideas are developing. I was never a covops partisan -- I didn't think they make sense for the ship -- but I'll fly the heck out of them if they go live per the current experimental version. A little too much winsauce indeed!
I tended to use my SB solo, in Empire, to prosecute Empire wars, against solo targets and poorly defended industrial assets. Being able to warp cloaked will make it a thousand times easier to use this ship as a hunter, and the recloak delay won't matter because I simply won't uncloak unless I'm confident of my ability to kill or escape in time. And the torps will be awesome in an anti-hauler / anti-barge role. I will fly and love this ship even if I never shoot at a battleship.
I'm also delighted that my cruise missile training points won't be wasted. Unbonused, the cruises will be less useful against small ships, which never made much sense as a bomber target anyway; but they'll remain just as useful against larger targets from extreme range, where the goal was always area denial rather than kills. I can make a battleship leave from ranges where he can't -- unless sniper fit -- engage me; and that's a win in many cases. And I can still pop barges and haulers from that range if they are AFK-mining, as they often are, without any risk of getting caught in a trap.
How well they'll work in the anti-battleship role I cannot say, but they seem plausible; especially against certain sorts of missioning and ratting fits, where the BS is unlikely to get support and may not be able to hit a frigate at all. Again, the covops cloak makes this ship into an efficient hunter of whatever targets it can hope to kill, and gives all the initiative to the bomber pilot so that he can limit his engagements to ones he can win.
It's not the bomber I'm used to, no -- but it's much much better. I'm actually concerned that it will prove too full of winsauce and will be nerfed.
None of this is intended to argue with the folks who are still complaining; they obviously want to use the bomber for things I don't care about doing. But it's clear to me that I can find things -- yummy things, lots of 'em -- to do with this new bomber. I want one. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
J Valkor
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 00:14:00 -
[130]
So this means that Stealth Bombers along with Force Recons will be the only things in the game with covert ops cloaks?
How would those two ships types working in tandem do? The new falcon + the new manticores in teams of 3-5? Could they effectively perma jam the enemy ship while being able to whittle away at it and deal with drones?
How about curses+its stealth bombers?
Would covert ops cloaks make bombs work?
|
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 00:20:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Marlenus
And the torps will be awesome in an anti-hauler / anti-barge role.
QFT
A ship is invented for a specific role that it doesn't quite fill so people invent novel tactics to get round its weak points.
Does anyone else see the irony?
|
Seraphim Io
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 00:40:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Seraphim Io on 31/03/2009 00:46:03 Ok thanks for finally considering the cov ops cloak for the STEALTH Bomber, however with the imposed delay I say stick it i'll keep what I got. This ship is the only subcap with 7 bonus'....7! Torpedo's would be alright if you hadn't already screwed them with a previous patch. Bombs, argh.....not even going to dignify them with a comment. Keep trying, we aren't impressed. *Edit* oh yeah as far as the anti-bs role all I have to say is Light Drones
|
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 00:51:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 00:53:27
Originally by: J Valkor So this means that Stealth Bombers along with Force Recons will be the only things in the game with covert ops cloaks?
How would those two ships types working in tandem do? The new falcon + the new manticores in teams of 3-5? Could they effectively perma jam the enemy ship while being able to whittle away at it and deal with drones?
How about curses+its stealth bombers?
Would covert ops cloaks make bombs work?
Dealing with drones is my biggest concern. Also the 30 second time to recloak is stupid, the defense is cloak, you take insta-cloaking away and that kinda of defeats the purpose. You're forcing us in to a role best served by any other ship (i.e. another battleship), recloaking to escape should be an option. tell us how you intend on not getting SBs dead by being close range? You devs have such a hard on for torps, you have to provide away for us to tank or escape, mmaybe +2 scramble strenght? Something will have to provide us a way to get in do our pittiful damage and get out. |
Seraphim Io
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 00:59:00 -
[134]
Here's a thought take away the launcher requirement for the bomb launcher and rename it "bomb deployment bay" or some crap like that then at the least we can have the launchers AND the dud-launcher with the ewar bombs at our disposal. Also to reiterate TORPS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:18:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Wannabehero on 31/03/2009 01:19:19 Already posted too many times, but here are the bonuses I would like
Racial Frigate Skill Bonus: 11.11% reduction in cruise missile and torpedo explosion radius per level 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to bomb racial damage per level 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo racial damage per level
Role Bonus: -99% reduction in cruise and siege launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in bomb launcher CPU use Ability to fit covert ops cloak, 12.5 second reactivation delay (not effected by cloaking skill)
In addition, each stealth bomber could use an approx. +15 Powergrid and +40 CPU. It would allow a torp bomber to use at least one cruiser sized tanking module (medium extender, 400mm plate) and an afterburner but still need to use at least one, often two, fitting modules. It would also allow a cruise bomber to fit missile rigs without sacrificing almost all of his lows to co-processors.
Covert DPS ships finally in the game. Please let them be winsauce. Winsauce is good, it makes players happy. If stealth bombers become to powerful you can always nerf em back a little.
Edit: colors! --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:26:00 -
[136]
SB fix, as they are now (cruise) but with:
10% Role Bonus to TP. (role bonus not bonus x level)
Bomb Launcher: Removed from SB ship class.
In this way SB will not be able to solo Frigs, a minimum level of EW can let them to be more useful (and welcome) in small gangs. Also, this will increase a bit the dmg output (at the cost of using TPs in the meds) against smaller targets.
----
New ship class Heavy Stealth bomber:
based on destroyer hull - more EHP, and high racial resists (Kinetic Caldari / Therm Gallente / etc), able to tank a BS for 15/20 seconds or to survive same racial bomb explosion.
Covert Ops cloaking with 30 sec delay activation. (15 sec with cloaking skill @ 5) 10% bomb racial damage per level.
hardpoint for weapon: 1xBomb launcher RoF 60 seconds (no torp skill required, only bomb skill)
New Bomb type: "Laser guided" -> As a torp but with the following attributes: Speed 2000m/s 3000 HP damage sig exp 360m2 exp velocity like a t1 torp range 30Km max
with max skill it should be around 4500 alfa. Cheap bomb price(20-50K isk).
Normal bomb will get a better bonus and the cost should drop to 1-2M isk.
Just dreaming.
|
galphi
Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:30:00 -
[137]
Woah, that's more like it! Nice compromise on the covert ops cloak, I like that a lot. The torp explosion velocity is excellent too, sounds like a nasty little ship.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:01:00 -
[138]
You know what, you can do whatever you want to the targeted offensive systems on stealth bombers. Make them torps, or citadel torps, or smartbombs for all I care.
Just keep the covert cloak. Reduce the cost of bombs to ~1 mil ISK ea Double bomb flight speed Reduce bomb flight time to 10 seconds Increase bomb hit points to 350 Increase bomb damage by 25% Reduce the reactivation delay on the bomb launcher to 60 seconds (45 seconds with bomb deploy V) Reduce bomb cargo volume to one third current.
Now fleet fights would interesting.
- Stealth bombers would equal a very real threat to battleships, so your fleet brings destroyers/interceptors to deal with the bombers and their bombs.
- You want to clear the other fleet's screening ships, so you bring your own cruisers/HACs/assault ships to clear the way for your bombers
- You want to neutralize the threat to your screening ships, so you bring Battlecruisers/EW ships to disable or destroy enemy anti-support snipers/brawlers.
My god, it gets me hawt! please make bombs, and bombers, worthwhile in this respect, please! --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:16:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Solid Prefekt on 31/03/2009 02:24:11 First off, I like this new idea (with the covert cloak) a LOT better then the initial idea. If you want this to be 2/3 closer to the battle then it would need to have a better tank as this is the age of sniper hacs and a bomber will die VERY quickly. How it stands now, it is next to impossible to fit any type of tank.
Thinking about it, you do get a 10% velocity bonus per level, couple that with Jav torps and you should have maybe 75km range? (completely guesstimating that). And the initial thread was unanimous in no one liking the idea, this one people seem to be more split (which is a good thing).
|
Valadeya uthanaras
Corp 1 Allstars PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:35:00 -
[140]
First , lots of thanks to CCP Chronotis to keep taking the players opinions in consideration to test stuff. <3
I will propose something more from the original design of the bomber , and if you can test it on sisi I am sure you will like what i propose.
The first thing is to not make it overpowered and here what i believe should be done.
1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak
This is a really interesting idea but the "get in system" would be so much more tactical, fun, and interrsting made more use of the pre-nerf bat black ops. if the "getting into position" would be a lot more of a surprise if, a recon lit a covert cyno and the are JB into system along with shiny black ops.
Imo keep the 5 sec delay but no speed boost - fixing black ops would make that ability right on spot , not overpowered just on spot.
4. They will still use bombs
I might have accidently cross the line toward the overpowered part in the last thread so here a new tought.
bomber originally had 2 "launcher" slots , what if we make these laucher slots into bomb launcher slots?
of course a decrease into bomb damage would be required but here some more interesting numbers I tought you would like:
change bomb deployment skill to 5% damage per level
Damage bombs Damage: 4800 ( a 25% reduction ) Max Flight Time: 5.00 sec (66% reduction) Armor: 360 (50% increase) explosion range: 10000 m (33% reduction)
Void/ECM bombs Armor resist: 99.5 to all damage type Armor: 360 (50% increase) explosion range: 10000 m (33% reduction)
Cut mineral price by 50% this will effectively mean: with top skill 1 bomber can deal a
4800*2*1.25*1.25= 15000 damage to a battleship before resist ( every 160 sec) therefore less than 100 dps, just alpha
2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes. with my proposal above allow bomber to have only 4 launcher slot with the bomb launcher taking a slot each, this will mean pilot can either chose between 2 torp launcher with 2 bomb launcher (need 1 APC to fit) or 4 torpedoes launcher( no fitting mods required)
therefore the bonus layout would be almost the same :
+1 launcher slot (no bonus to CPU/PG)
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to Torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.75% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use / 2 bomb launcher can be fitted -100% targeting delay after decloaking
As malus:
It don't have covert cloak or high speed ( highly vulnerable to small ships uncloaking them or getting into position without a proper trained and equiped force)
The delay and range of bomb and easily be countered by clever piloting: ( about 2 sec delay to jump in after cyno is lit + 1 sec to start bombing + 5 sec delay on bombs (8 sec total) without easy warp disruption system(arazu would at the limit have 7 BS pointed and to do so would have to uncloak/ hit cyno/ target / point and we talk about 5-6 sec delay - and will be in bomb blast)
the bomber themselve will have to stay uncloak until bomb blast and will take damage from them, and at the limit, if not tanked, will die from it - meaning a strike team will have to coordinate module use
a bomber fitted with only torpedo launcher will pack a lot of punch but will be truly made of glass (no covert warp/ speedy cloaked speed)but if the black ops are fixed(they should have been fixed before bomber and bomber adjusted to them) they will have the rare ability to jump into cyno jam system and take opponents off-guard
Plz put some thinking to my proposal CCP Chronotis, I am sure you will like it because even if the "bomb" might seem overpowered on paper, its still: Costly (40mil for a multi-bomb attack) and Skill intensive SP + pilot
|
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:52:00 -
[141]
in my opinion just give it the abillity to use cov up cloaks, let it keep the cruise missiles, give it a -50% rof on cruise missiles, and a -50% fight time and a +50% flight speed and a 60% dmg increase on cruise missiles per lvl (bringing it too a 300% increase in dmg at max lvl instead of the 50% it have now, giving it a effective dps of around 500 from a long range and a alpha at around 10k (although 7,5k would properly be more appropriated) (sorry if my match is of it's 5 in the morning here :P ). this would give it the additional alphe accepted dps, while keeping it at long range, still letting it hit within a decend time and let it come in as a "stealth ship" (maybe removing the cov cloak, or it will properly be too overpowered).
but anyway numbers may be off, but this is the direction i think it should go. totally redesigning it becouse the balance is a bit off, well that just seems like a very wrong way to go..
(which i was part of the balance team, man i love fidling with balance :P ) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:57:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 31/03/2009 02:58:04
Originally by: CrestoftheStars in my opinion just give it the abillity to use cov up cloaks, let it keep the cruise missiles, give it a -50% rof on cruise missiles, and a -50% fight time and a +50% flight speed and a 60% dmg increase on cruise missiles per lvl (bringing it too a 300% increase in dmg at max lvl instead of the 50% it have now, giving it a effective dps of around 500 from a long range and a alpha at around 10k (although 7,5k would properly be more appropriated) (sorry if my match is of it's 5 in the morning here :P ). this would give it the additional alphe accepted dps, while keeping it at long range, still letting it hit within a decend time and let it come in as a "stealth ship" (maybe removing the cov cloak, or it will properly be too overpowered).
but anyway numbers may be off, but this is the direction i think it should go. You'd think 15 pages of us totally rejected the idea of torps would get the point across but guess not. totally redesigning it becouse the balance is a bit off, well that just seems like a very wrong way to go..
(which i was part of the balance team, man i love fidling with balance :P )
This would be best. Trying to force these things into close range combat is just stupid. |
Peanorue
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 03:21:00 -
[143]
Bombs need to be tweaked, Should have the option for either cruises or Torps as Bombs don't cut it atm.
|
Shun Makoto
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 04:02:00 -
[144]
If you do this you will see a 500% fatality increase for Stealth Bombers.
This is absolutely the worst idea since not giving Faction Warfare Rewards.
|
Major Deviant
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 04:52:00 -
[145]
One thing I can certainly forsee from this change is the steep drop of Imporved cloaking devices.
Since it is crystal clear that you you do want to "fix" the ship but reinvent it why do it the hard way? Just invent a new torpedo bomber. Same hull, different skin and name it whatever you like and give it torpedoes.
As for the existing one, just tweak its existing bonuses, not add or remove anything. Increased cloaked velocity? Sounds good. Revisiting the cruise bonuses? Would be nice.
AFs have two versions, Intereceptors have two versions, why not Bombers too? Is it that much work for your art department?
And look at bombs pls, I want to use them in low sec as I do not intend to go to nullsec anytime in the future.
|
Fayt Leingod
Power Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:06:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Devasatation Something like this perhaps? --- Name: Purifier Role: Precision Stealth Bomber Developer: Viziam
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: -15% reduction in Explosion Velocity of Cruise Missiles -15% reduction in Explosion Radius of Cruise Missiles
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 10% Increase in Scan Resolution 200% increase in cloaked velocity
Role Bonus: -99% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs -100% targeting delay after decloaking
---
Name: *whatever* Role: Seige Stealth Bomber Developer: Kahnid
Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb EM damage per level 20% bonus to Torpedo EM damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use -100% targeting delay after decloaking -99% Reduction in covert ops cloak cpu use
--- IMO give player the choice of if they want a close range anti-bs brawler like the devs are suggesting, or a long range anti-frigate sniper like we have already. Since half of the people here seem to want the new bombers and the other half want to keep the old ones :\
this is the best way it keeps what we have and gives CCP what they want
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:08:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Yon Krum on 31/03/2009 05:10:00
Originally by: yani dumyat
Reading through this thread and the previous one the pure ingenuity of the pilots compared to the falcon thread is quite something.
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
This: to both points.
Dear Chronotis, you seem to be actually listening in this thread and working to balance the suggestions and interests of the players. We SB pilots really do spend far too much time staring at walls considering tactics, or posting on GD forum from work.... Er, anyway.
Devasatation on page 4 (#122) basically wrote out the exact proposal I was crafting, so I'll reiterate it: do ships with both T2 skins and make one the torpship with bonus damage, and the other optimized for cruises against smaller targets--but without damage bonuses.
Cruise SB: as now, but improve explosion velocity and sig radius bonus instead of damage bonus. No cov-ops cloak. No bomb launcher is needed, but if you keep it, no biggie. The purpose of the craft is to work with torp-SBs to destroy tacklers and clear light support.
Torp SB: As with your proposal, however DO drop the explosion velocity bonus as you suggest in favor of increased ship speed while cloaked. Also, please consider along with it a strong increase in volley damage--possibly with a ROF penalty to keep the overall DPS in the same range as your version. This would reduce the usefulness of the ship versus cruiser and BC-class vessals, while retaining their effectiveness against battleships. If you insist on retaining the torp-SB as a frigate-sized ship, please reduce the sig radius to an average of 35 (from about 50, now).
Other points: the Torp-SB needs to have enough CPU to fit at minimum: TP, web, and warp disruptor. Since your expectation apparently is that the ship will hit and run, it need to hit extremely hard and be able to return and re-position quickly. If it need to direct fire at a fast-moving target that should be slowed down (AB or MWD BS), then it can get within 10km and use web or warp disruptor to bring speed within torp explosion velocity. One TP will take a BS sig up to size.
It would be nice if you introduced a new set of T2 destroyers to include the torp-SB idea, but I say that because I love the dessie far more than it's meager role and effectiveness should permit. If you did such a "Space Superiority" class, you'd finally have the place to stick the much-needed tanky+guns T2 destroyer... but I digress. Also, using citadel torps for this kind of ship (destroyer-hull) would drive home its specialized role and be an intriguing use for the cap-sized weapons.
Please do not remove another anti-frigate platform while you change the SB. Add options--don't remove them.
Thanks, --Krum
--Krum |
Tais
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:10:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Tais on 31/03/2009 05:19:19 First of all, bombers are deadborn class of ships, and giving ability to fit Siege launchers, won't give them second life.
Even with all changes and theoretical abilily to kill small ships, they are useless. As a ceptor pilot, i have no problem with bombers at all. Tackling ceptor able to hold him from long range, and damagers just kill bomber before it can launch enough missiles to pop him, coz bombers don't have ability to fit any defence mods, lacking CPU, PG, slots.
Giving a bombers cov-ops cloak is good idea, making bombers able to surprise your enemy.
But. If bomber need to go to close range, 30 sec recalibration would make them useless, and maximum what they can do, is 1 shot, before going to rewarp. With inability to shot down (damaging) fast moving cruiser\frigate class targets they will be become obsolete. Once again. As they are now with bombs. Too expensive and useless.
To be Anti-BS weapon is total bul....t. Average BS have 20k armor with 60-70% resistances (my fleet sniper have), Close Range BS have 30k+, that's aroung 100k effective HP. How many volleys needed to kill a battleship ?? 25-30 ?? Funny.
|
galphi
Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:37:00 -
[149]
I still think the signature radius on bombers should be lowered a bit, just to help them survive a little longer, and it fits the stealth theme. Maybe low to mid 30's.
To replace the cruise missile type of bomber, I propose a tech 2 destroyer that can fit cruise launchers :D
|
Aron Palatine
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:38:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Aron Palatine on 31/03/2009 05:43:41 TL: DR Make cruiser and battleship variant stealth bombers, drop the missiles and go with just bombs on the frigates.
Going with a destroyer wouldn't be enough. EHPs of a destroyer is still to low to make it enough of a difference for the mobility lost. However, I think taking the stealth bomber 'line' and extending it could be helpful. Each of the other frigate classes have at least cruiser, and some battleship, classes to grow into. Assault Frigates to HACs, EWar to Recons, etc.
Keeping the 'gimmick' that makes a Stealth Bomber what it is (Cloaking speed, No delay targeting, bombs, etc) you could make a cruiser and battleship version of the ship that would make training into the frigate worth the time/effort.
Originally by: Spazzle - Goonfleet.com
Stealth bombers should probably be reduced to bomb droppers, and optimized for that. I'd probably do something like the following
1) Remove the missile bonuses form the damn things 2) Make bombs costs like 0.1-0.5M isk 3) Remove the damage bombs 4) Add more status effect bombs, like things that add heat damage or slow ships down for a bit in addition to the existing cap bomb and ecm bomb.
And this is how you would balance out the class so it isn't a solo pwnmobile. Restrict the "easier" to acquire frigates to a support/ecm roll with both small gang or fleet potential like suggested above; Allow the cruiser variant to use either the frigate roll bombs and the current damage bombs, allowing them to maybe double up or otherwise balance out the extra EHPs to the 'stealth' capabilities; Allow the Battleship variant to use all 3 of the rolls: ECM/Support, Damage Bomb, Cruise OR Torps.
This class has really got to have the CovOps cloaks though. There is really no reason to fly them with anything else.
It's been suggested a few times that if going with the above support bombs to give the bombers 3x bomb launchers so they can actually do something serious without waiting on the reload times and dieing after 1 shot. Bombs could also be target weapons, shot like a missile instead of timed like a grenade.
The final note: If you want these to fly in fleet, then make them use their fleet-oriented weapons. With missles, even with a handful of them together, you won't be able to make a battleship anything but laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |