EVE Search - Black Ops Represent?!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Black Ops Represent?!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shepard Book Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 60	Posted - 2012.05.14 23:03:00 - [1] - Quote They done been, been nerfed. Yall know they are not being flown but rarely. Stop making the pay for win rage push this to the back burner along with WIS please. Give'm a cov cloak and a role. The anti Cap idea was not bad. Just make the price tag for them in line please. While your at it, make low sec like WH local and remove it from 0.0. Especially before nerf ( Dang, give me free intel peeps. ) cloaks gets any traction. Thanks! That's right. I said it.
Korg Leaf Operation Cloverfield The Shadowbolts Collective 11	Posted - 2012.05.14 23:13:00 - [2] - Quote I have no idea what in the hell you just said, so I will present a counter. Teapot. That is all.
non judgement Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance 779	Posted - 2012.05.15 00:17:00 - [3] - Quote I have 2 characters with black ops. I think they work fine. It isn't often that they're in a battle. lol But I do like transporting stuff without much chance of someone intercepting it.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 1436	Posted - 2012.05.15 00:49:00 - [4] - Quote Black Ops are pretty handy for a lot of things. Just not good at what they're supposed to be used for. Welcome to EVE. Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks
Ptraci 3 R Corporation The Irukandji 508	Posted - 2012.05.15 00:52:00 - [5] - Quote Shepard Book wrote: They done been, been nerfed. Yall know they are not being flown but rarely. Stop making the pay for win rage push this to the back burner along with WIS please. Give'm a cov cloak and a role. The anti Cap idea was not bad. Just make the price tag for them in line please. While your at it, make low sec like WH local and remove it from 0.0. Especially before nerf ( Dang, give me free intel peeps. ) cloaks gets any traction. Thanks! That's right. I said it. You're doing it wrong. The battleship is a support ship and should not be on grid (unless there is overwhelming force). It jumps the fleet in, and it jumps the fleet out. Therefore it does not need a covert ops cloak.
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 333	Posted - 2012.05.15 00:56:00 - [6] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Black Ops are pretty handy for a lot of things. Just not good at what they're supposed to be used for. Welcome to EVE. Mr Epeen okay what are they supposed to be used for eh
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 1436	Posted - 2012.05.15 00:59:00 - [7] - Quote Ptraci wrote: Shepard Book wrote: They done been, been nerfed. Yall know they are not being flown but rarely. Stop making the pay for win rage push this to the back burner along with WIS please. Give'm a cov cloak and a role. The anti Cap idea was not bad. Just make the price tag for them in line please. While your at it, make low sec like WH local and remove it from 0.0. Especially before nerf ( Dang, give me free intel peeps. ) cloaks gets any traction. Thanks! That's right. I said it. You're doing it wrong. The battleship is a support ship and should not be on grid (unless there is overwhelming force). It jumps the fleet in, and it jumps the fleet out. Therefore it does not need a covert ops cloak. There are better ships that don't require a year of dedicated training and 700m (before fitting) to light a cyno. This really is not a good ship as it is now. Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 1403	Posted - 2012.05.15 02:00:00 - [8] - Quote Jedi hand wave No one flies black ops. No one actually uses black ops. Black ops do not need dev attention. And look! A squirrel!
Bootleg Jack Potters Field 77	Posted - 2012.05.15 02:25:00 - [9] - Quote The problem with Black Ops is if it could actually do "Black Ops"; everyone would whine like hell If it could CovOp, that might be nice, it could help transport the stealth bombers I'm an American, English is my second language...
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 1440	Posted - 2012.05.15 02:38:00 - [10] - Quote Bootleg Jack wrote: The problem with Black Ops is if it could actually do "Black Ops"; everyone would whine like hell If it could CovOp, that might be nice, it could help transport the stealth bombers The problem is the same one that plagues the covert ops ships. It shows up in local. Someone explain to me what the point of a 'stealth' ship is if it has a big blinking sign on it that screams "Look everyone, I just jumped into your system. Get the probes out"? Would I love to have such an expensive and long to train for ship have more than one lame role? Of course. Cov ops cloak? Absolutely. But that is secondary to the simple mechanic of having a dedicated stealth ship actually be able to be undetected. Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks
RubyPorto Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 1496	Posted - 2012.05.15 02:41:00 - [11] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Black Ops are pretty handy for a lot of things. Just not good at what they're supposed to be used for. Welcome to EVE. Mr Epeen Exactly. They're much cheaper than a JF. [Sin, A USEFUL SIN] Improved Cloaking Device II Cynosural Field Generator I Covert Cynosural Field Generator I Covert Jump Portal Generator I [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Heavy Capacitor Booster II Heavy Capacitor Booster II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Large Cargohold Optimization I Large Cargohold Optimization I Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
ApophisXP Sadistic Retribution Sadistic Empire 45	Posted - 2012.05.15 05:11:00 - [12] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Jedi hand wave No one flies black ops. No one actually uses black ops. Black ops do not need dev attention. And look! A squirrel! Ooo a squirrel!
Shang Fei The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated 21	Posted - 2012.05.15 05:23:00 - [13] - Quote I agree buffing black ops would be kinda neat, but I can't say that they're useless at all!
Nylith Empyreal Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2012.05.15 05:27:00 - [14] - Quote People think it not be like this, but it do. "Oh, you can't help that," said the troll: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" -ásaid the forumwarrior. "You must be," said the troll, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Ocih Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums 196	Posted - 2012.05.15 06:30:00 - [15] - Quote I always remember the Chevette someone put a 350 in when I think of Black Ops. It cracked the frame in two like an eggshell but it was quite a remarkable sight, the 20 seconds it was actually able to move.
Geil Ding Perkone Caldari State 5	Posted - 2012.05.15 06:38:00 - [16] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Black Ops are pretty handy for a lot of things. Just not good at what they're supposed to be used for. Welcome to EVE. Mr Epeen Exactly. They're much cheaper than a JF. [Sin, A USEFUL SIN] Improved Cloaking Device II Cynosural Field Generator I Covert Cynosural Field Generator I Covert Jump Portal Generator I [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Heavy Capacitor Booster II Heavy Capacitor Booster II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Large Cargohold Optimization I Large Cargohold Optimization I Try the same fitting for a Redeemer.. 5071 m/3 cargohold
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 342	Posted - 2012.05.15 06:42:00 - [17] - Quote i love the arguments put forth in favor of nerfing local "local makes for easymode carebearing in nullsec" which is completely different from "removing local will make for easymode ratter KMs in nullsec" eh
Ptraci 3 R Corporation The Irukandji 508	Posted - 2012.05.15 09:02:00 - [18] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: There are better ships that don't require a year of dedicated training and 700m (before fitting) to light a cyno. This really is not a good ship as it is now. Mr Epeen Er - the battleship is not the one lighting the cyno. It's the one doing the bridging. Someone else is usually lighting the cyno - preferably 2 people, one in the target system and one exit cyno. 700M and a year worth of training (it's not really that much, I should know, I have 2 toons with black ops skills) to have the functionality of a baby titan bridge? Yes please. Also remember that you can bridge to regular cynos, not just covert ones. And you can bridge cloaky T3 ships, not just bombers. Black ops is fun the way it is. My biggest complaint is of course the range but hey. you can't have everything.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire 3448	Posted - 2012.05.15 09:54:00 - [19] - Quote Increase jump LY pls. GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' Follow me on Twitter @Chribba

RubyPorto Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 1500	Posted - 2012.05.15 10:00:00 - [20] - Quote Geil Ding wrote: Try the same fitting for a Redeemer.. 5071 m/3 cargohold Downside of the redeemer is the additional time it needs to cap up. The Sin pops the two 800s and is off to the races, while the Redeemer is going to need 2 cycles. That means that the Sin can run 5 jumps without using any of its cargo space, while the Redeemer can only do 2(and a half) jumps. The reason behind the wonky mids is that you're in and out of a system in the 15s it takes to wait out your session change timer. The Redeemer, needing 2 cycles (or worse, a natural recharge) has to hang around in system roughly twice as long. Which might not be a huge deal, since you can cloak, but that depends on your circumstances. The Redeemer is certainly effective, but the 384m3 of Cap boosters it has to carry to match the Cap boosted range of the Sin (a difference that grows with a larger distance to travel) reduces the cargohold advantage it has over the SIn. So the choice between Redeemer and Sin is, as everything, a trade-off. Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Gerrick Palivorn Caldari Provisions Caldari State 264	Posted - 2012.05.15 10:42:00 - [21] - Quote I find that the advantages of any of the black ops bs depends on the role; when using it as a mini JF or a WH based raid supporter, the Sin is king (having the lowest unmodified mass with good slot layout). As far as the dedicated bridger I would lean harder towards the Panther or Redeemer, they have better fuel economy (current cost of fuels over caldari and gallente isotopes) and pretty decent cargoholds. Cap recharge time isn't super important as long as it can recover for another jump in 45 seconds (roughly the time it takes to jump in, activate bridge, recover hotdrop fleet, and jump back). Best part about it is that it doesn't require cap boosters to operate. Plus the Panther gets bonuses to Projectiles. In both the roles above the Widow has no place due to the cost of caldari fuel and the slot limitations.
Tobiaz Spacerats 415	Posted - 2012.05.15 10:57:00 - [22] - Quote I don't see why CCP can't just allow the Black Ops to use cov-ops cloaks (if that is the case). It's one of the most expensive non-cap ships, that can't do risk-free bombing runs like a SB, nor is it nimble enough to respond quickly to new threats. If it gets jumped in return, it's probably only moments away from becoming a very hefty lossmail. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Sentient Blade Walk It Off Imperial Ascension 373	Posted - 2012.05.15 11:44:00 - [23] - Quote I've been using black ops a lot recently and they have 2 big problems: #1. Their limited jump / bridge range. #2. Their tiny fuel holds when used in a bridging role.
Vera Algaert Republic University Minmatar Republic 127	Posted - 2012.05.15 11:47:00 - [24] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: #2. Their tiny fuel holds when used in a bridging role. this would be a problem - if they couldn't bridge blockade runners
Cebraio Starfire Oasis 57	Posted - 2012.05.15 11:57:00 - [25] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: [Sin, A USEFUL SIN] ... Heavy Capacitor Booster II Heavy Capacitor Booster II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I ... Why does it have 4x MWD?
Sentient Blade Walk It Off Imperial Ascension 373	Posted - 2012.05.15 12:27:00 - [26] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: Sentient Blade wrote: #2. Their tiny fuel holds when used in a bridging role. this would be a problem - if they couldn't bridge blockade runners Indeed, and it's something we have had to do in the past, but there are a couple of issues with it. First, jumping the blockade runner itself consumes more fuel, but secondly, and more importantly, it relegates someone in fleet to a dull out-of-engagement role. That's fine when you're cloaky haulers are going to be deploying POS towers in enemy systems and what-not, but to just sit there holding fuel, cloaked up, not so much. Having a 2500 m3 fuel hold (minimum) would be far more fitting for Black Ops IMO.
Ryoko Matsu Community against Justice Tribal Dragons 3	Posted - 2012.05.15 12:32:00 - [27] - Quote Cebraio wrote: RubyPorto wrote: [Sin, A USEFUL SIN] ... Heavy Capacitor Booster II Heavy Capacitor Booster II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I ... Why does it have 4x MWD? to lower the cap, so that the cap can be faster filled up with the cap-boosters (at first i hadn-¦t a clue either...but after thinking fo a while -> ping) edith says: btw a very good use of "game-mechanics"
Cebraio Starfire Oasis 57	Posted - 2012.05.15 12:40:00 - [28] - Quote Ryoko Matsu wrote: Cebraio wrote: RubyPorto wrote: [Sin, A USEFUL SIN] ... Heavy Capacitor Booster II Heavy Capacitor Booster II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I 100MN MicroWarpdrive I ... Why does it have 4x MWD? to lower the cap, so that the cap can be faster filled up with the cap-boosters (at first i hadn-¦t a clue either...but after thinking fo a while -> ping) edith says: btw a very good use of "game-mechanics" Thanks for saving me the hassle of using my own grey cells. I thought about mass related effects, but that would be disadvantageous and only happening when active.
Singoth Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 16	Posted - 2012.05.15 12:47:00 - [29] - Quote Pony. Definately pony. Sonic Rainboom!
Shepard Book Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 60	Posted - 2012.05.15 19:17:00 - [30] - Quote Richard Desturned wrote: i love the arguments put forth in favor of nerfing local "local makes for easymode carebearing in nullsec" which is completely different from "removing local will make for easymode ratter KMs in nullsec" Imagine space where people had to use their scanners and scouts instead of local for intel... I have a dream

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.