Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tommy Blue
Black Lance
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 17:25:00 -
[61]
I like how when even though the CCPers said that these things are possibilities, you spin it so that it sounds like that's actually going to happen and its going to happen during the winter expansion.
For those of you who did not listen to the interview and are just listening to the convos going on in here, for the record it COULD happen. It is just an idea they are throwing around.
-TB
|
JC Anderson
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 17:27:00 -
[62]
I would hope anybody that is going to comment in the thread would listen to it first. :/ But I guess I'm delusional. ;)
And yes, as the above poster said, "It simply brain storming right now."
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 18:17:00 -
[63]
Edited by: MeBiatch on 20/07/2011 18:20:55
Originally by: JC Anderson
Originally by: MeBiatch new tech II BO drake:
bc ship bonus: 5% to shield resist per lev 5% to kinetic missle damage per level
BO ship bonus: 5% to missle rof 98-99% reduction in covert ops cloaking cpu useage per level
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. No targeting delay after decloaking
But... I fail to see anything in your idea that has anything to do with an anti-supercap role?
see my other post about taking theheavy bomber role and putting it in for BO... which would mean BO role would be put on tier II tech II bc's (a better fit imo)
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:01:00 -
[64]
New sin with changed roll from black ops to heavy bomber:
gallente bs ship bonus: 10% bonus to citadel torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to citadel torpedo velocity per level
Heavy bomber ship bonus: 5% bonus to heavy bomb thermal damage per level 15% bonus to citadel torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.65% reduction in citadel torpedo Launcher powergrid needs Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and heavy bomb launchers
------------------------------------------------------------- tech II Myrm
bc ship bonus: 10% to drone damage/hp per lev 7.5% to armor rep amount per lev
BO ship bonus: 5% bonus to agility per lev 98-99% reduction in covert ops cloaking device cpu need per level
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. can fit covert ops cloak. No targeting delay after decloaking
|
Kiran
Minmatar Knights of Azrael
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:06:00 -
[65]
Originally by: m3rr Supercaps are pretty much the one thing that prevents a lot of people from actually succeeding in 0.0
If battleships were the primary ship used to take sov and conquer the universe again, then it would great for new players and Eve Online as a whole!
What I am trying to say is rebalance super capitals and rebalance moon minerals.
I can remeber a time when if a corp had even one battleship they was considered to be rich and unstopable. A time when Rifters cost 5 million isk each.
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:17:00 -
[66]
new panther as a heavy bomber:
minmatar bs ship bonus: 10% bonus to citadel torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to citadel torpedo velocity per level
heavy bomber sihp bonus: 5% bonus to heavy bomb explosive damage per level 15% bonus to citadel Torpedo explosive damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.65% reduction in citadel torpedo Launcher powergrid needs
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and bomb launchers
-------------------------------------------------------- new BO CANE! 5% increase in projectile weapons damage and Rate of Fire per level
BO ship bonus: 5% to velocity per level 98-99% reduction in cpu need for covert ops cloak
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. Can fit covert ops cloak. No targeting delay after decloaking
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Minmatar Hellstar Towing and Recovery
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:20:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Kieron VonDeux Good listen, but I would rather have a Tech II Tier II BC as a Cap killing Stealth Bomber.
This. Absolutely, this!
It'd be the perfect ship for it. actually.
|
Missuri
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:22:00 -
[68]
It would be great to see a module disallowing Cyno Generators on grid. This module will stop Hot Dropping maneuvers when deployed.
Of course that module should stop the BO from moving or cloaking.
|
Last Star Fighter
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:27:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Missuri It would be great to see a module disallowing Cyno Generators on grid. This module will stop Hot Dropping maneuvers when deployed.
Of course that module should stop the BO from moving or cloaking.
Oh yeah sure. Because Black Ops are known for their toughness on the battlefield and wont get one vollied from some harsh language from the enemy fleet. ***SPACESHIPS > ROBOTS*** |
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:49:00 -
[70]
new Redeemer role as a heavy bomber:
Ammar bs ship bonus: 10% bonus to citadel torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to citadel torpedo velocity per level
heavy Bomber ship bonus: 5% bonus to Heavy bomb EM damage 15% bonus to Citadel Torpedo EM damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.65% reduction in citadel torpedo Launcher powergrid needs
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and heavy bomb launchers
----------------------------------------------------------- New tech II harbinger as BO
BC ship bonus: 10% reduction in laser capacitor need and 5% bonus to laser damage per level.
BO ship bonus: 7.5% to medium laser tracking per level 98-99% reduction in CPU usage for covert ops cloaking device
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. Can fit covert ops cloak. No targeting delay after decloaking
|
|
Kartaugh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:50:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Planktal Maybe they're turning Black Ops into this?
Escort Carrier
Whoever drew those ships deserves a place in the ship design team at CCP.
Actually, scratch that, he deserves to SUBSTITUTE the current ship design team.
Just awesome stuff there. -------------------------------------------- "It's not that I am afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Boris Grushenko |
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:51:00 -
[72]
You prefer T2 BCs you sayà
àwell, then you know what time it is:
Roden Myrmidon Time!!
ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP |
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 20:31:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Shepard Book Edited by: Shepard Book on 20/07/2011 11:48:18 I think cit. torps would be a horrible idea for black ops to use. Think of how many carriers and super carriers use smart bombs. I do hope they get covert ops cloaks though. Bombers never worked right until they received them. It makes even MORE since than before if this is the new role they make for black ops.
hence why there will be an ex velocity bonus... so smart bombs dont kill them
|
fukier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 22:02:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Tippia You prefer T2 BCs you sayà
àwell, then you know what time it is:
Roden Myrmidon Time!!
i love the look of the ship but the fittings make my intaki heart cringe
|
Ehdward
Caldari Nex Exercitus Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 22:48:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:57:04 Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:53:04 Heavy Bomber is kind of a terrible name, IMO. How about Titan Hunter or something of that sort?
Personally, I'd like to see them as a new subclass to Black Ops or Marauders, using the tier 3 hulls. Tech II Rokh ftw.
And what about instead of capital weapons, giving them a huge damage bonus along with an even huger tracking/sig res or explosion radius/velocity penalty, possibly using a mini-siege mode module? Obviously, it would need to have a drawback other than complete immobility, because that would A) make it redundant with regular siege, and B) make them squishier to caps.
|
Javelin6
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 23:32:00 -
[76]
Black-Ops do need a buff, but potentially changing their role to a super-capital killer is not it.
It's been said in many other threads about them; Increase jump/bridge range, raise resists slightly, add more scan resolution, and reduce fuel consumption for bridging. Do those things and most of us Black-Ops pilots will be happy. ______________________________________________
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 23:33:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Ehdward Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:57:04 Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:53:04 Heavy Bomber is kind of a terrible name, IMO. How about Titan Hunter or something of that sort?
Personally, I'd like to see them as a new subclass to Black Ops or Marauders, using the tier 3 hulls. Tech II Rokh ftw.
And what about instead of capital weapons, giving them a huge damage bonus along with an even huger tracking/sig res or explosion radius/velocity penalty, possibly using a mini-siege mode module? Obviously, it would need to have a drawback other than complete immobility, because that would A) make it redundant with regular siege, and B) make them squishier to caps.
How about turning the rokh into a massive mass driver which needs to aim the whole ship at the target thus making the gun useless vs sub caps and not that great at killing carriers and dreads. The amarr can have an abaddon with a beam weapon, gal get a railgun of doom in the hyperion and matar get a maelstrom with an oversized artillery gun.
|
Ehdward
Caldari Nex Exercitus Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 23:37:00 -
[78]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Ehdward Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:57:04 Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 22:53:04 Heavy Bomber is kind of a terrible name, IMO. How about Titan Hunter or something of that sort?
Personally, I'd like to see them as a new subclass to Black Ops or Marauders, using the tier 3 hulls. Tech II Rokh ftw.
And what about instead of capital weapons, giving them a huge damage bonus along with an even huger tracking/sig res or explosion radius/velocity penalty, possibly using a mini-siege mode module? Obviously, it would need to have a drawback other than complete immobility, because that would A) make it redundant with regular siege, and B) make them squishier to caps.
How about turning the rokh into a massive mass driver which needs to aim the whole ship at the target thus making the gun useless vs sub caps and not that great at killing carriers and dreads. The amarr can have an abaddon with a beam weapon, gal get a railgun of doom in the hyperion and matar get a maelstrom with an oversized artillery gun.
Yes, EVE needs Yamato Cannon.
|
Ehdward
Caldari Nex Exercitus Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 23:40:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Ehdward on 20/07/2011 23:41:17
Originally by: Javelin6 Black-Ops do need a buff, but potentially changing their role to a super-capital killer is not it.
It's been said in many other threads about them; Increase jump/bridge range, raise resists slightly, add more scan resolution, and reduce fuel consumption for bridging. Do those things and most of us Black-Ops pilots will be happy.
I think the idea isn't to make them better at being jump bridges, but to make them cooler than being just jump bridges. And a way to get subcaps into the cap/supercap rock-paper-scissors is sorely needed.
This is why I support a new subclass, instead of just totally changing the current Black Ops. Buff the old ones and leave them with their role, and give people who skilled up for tech II battleships a new, useful pvp combat ship.
|
iudex
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 23:46:00 -
[80]
Hmm you say training BO to lvl 5 wasn't a complete waste of skillpoints ? http://eveboard.com/pilot/iudex
The carebear within me rather preferred a role for BOs, that caters to carebearism though, such as an unprobable BO as the replacement of the unprobable Tengu. But any avail is better than none __________________________ http://eveboard.com/pilot/iudex |
|
Taipion
Caldari Operations Control United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 03:55:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Taipion on 21/07/2011 04:00:58 Edited by: Taipion on 21/07/2011 03:59:40
Originally by: Haulie Berry Edited by: Haulie Berry on 20/07/2011 16:31:35
Originally by: Taipion Edited by: Taipion on 20/07/2011 11:23:39 The whole idea of BlackOps as counter to SCs has one simple flaw, no matter how you do it.
- BlackOps are ****ty expensive for a SubCap.
This could be a problem.
Quote:
- BlackOps get pwned by other SubCaps.
Not this, though. In fact, that would sort of be the whole goddamn point. Everything has a counter.
Not exactly, tell me, how would you like to use BOs as a counter for that SC fleet thats just chewing through your fleet, when you have to take down the whole enemy SubCap fleet first? As they are now, a few SubCaps make quick work of any BO, and they are too expensive to waste them like that.
If the enemy is nullifying your standard-Caps with SCs, and even if your SubCap fleet is bigger than theirs, having to take out the whole enemy SubCap fleet first, to be able to safely deploy your BOs is not an option.
edit 1+2:
And in response to the other post, yes, EVE need Yamato Cannons!
Again, why not (as I allready made up in an earlier post) BOOST Dreads, so they can eventually do what they were made for?!
|
Ehdward
Caldari Nex Exercitus Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 04:44:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Ehdward on 21/07/2011 04:46:24
Originally by: Taipion Edited by: Taipion on 21/07/2011 04:00:58 Edited by: Taipion on 21/07/2011 03:59:40
Originally by: Haulie Berry Edited by: Haulie Berry on 20/07/2011 16:31:35
Originally by: Taipion Edited by: Taipion on 20/07/2011 11:23:39 The whole idea of BlackOps as counter to SCs has one simple flaw, no matter how you do it.
- BlackOps are ****ty expensive for a SubCap.
This could be a problem.
Quote:
- BlackOps get pwned by other SubCaps.
Not this, though. In fact, that would sort of be the whole goddamn point. Everything has a counter.
Not exactly, tell me, how would you like to use BOs as a counter for that SC fleet thats just chewing through your fleet, when you have to take down the whole enemy SubCap fleet first? As they are now, a few SubCaps make quick work of any BO, and they are too expensive to waste them like that.
If the enemy is nullifying your standard-Caps with SCs, and even if your SubCap fleet is bigger than theirs, having to take out the whole enemy SubCap fleet first, to be able to safely deploy your BOs is not an option.
edit 1+2:
And in response to the other post, yes, EVE need Yamato Cannons!
Again, why not (as I allready made up in an earlier post) BOOST Dreads, so they can eventually do what they were made for?!
Either way, it forces them to bring subcaps, it forces tactical decisions other than blobbing, and it forces more things to be happening at one time, which also fights lazy blobbing.
And if they are able to perform their function, losing blops in exchange for titan kills will still work out in your favor in the isk war.
|
Culmen
Caldari Vigrior The Dominion Empire
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 05:18:00 -
[83]
In order for the Black Ops to be a counter to SCs you'll need to solve several issues 1) The new addition must be extremely effective against SCs 2) The new addition must be less effective against Dreads 3) The new addition must be ineffective against anchorable objects 4) The new addition must be less effective against sub-caps
1) is obvious For 2) Simply put dreads have very little role left in eve, adding another predator is not going to help things 3) similarly you wouldn't want the Black ops to take over the role of capitals, just counter them. 4) Remember, you do not want Black Ops to be the new solo pwn mobile.
solving 3 can be handled by using tracking, but that will do little to help a stationary sieged dread from survival.
An option is to directly target the weapons of an SC. So have an Ewar module that shuts down doomsday weapons and fighter bombers.
Another option is to have a mini dooms day that only affects super caps. RP wise say it plays off the SC's intinsic e-war immunity.
and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 06:02:00 -
[84]
I had an idea a few years ago (before i started playing eve, but have been closely following it since beta), if a BS had a type of 'siege module' on it, it could lock all guns forward, and when you fired, it fired both racks of guns straight forward. So pointing your ship to the enemy ship before firing would be a must. Result? 2x or 3x the damage of a normal volley.
Just a side note or two in regards to Blops with citadels; launcher turrets are getting revamped very soon too, so it would be pretty weird to see such huge launchers on a small BS.
And in any case, they would still be very vulnerable to fighters, unless they majorly revamp the dessy.
In that case, fitting better/bigger guns to a small ship is just weird to me.
|
Shadowsword
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 06:06:00 -
[85]
Originally by: MeBiatch New sin with changed roll from black ops to heavy bomber:
gallente bs ship bonus: 10% bonus to citadel torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to citadel torpedo velocity per level
Heavy bomber ship bonus: 5% bonus to heavy bomb thermal damage per level 15% bonus to citadel torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.65% reduction in citadel torpedo Launcher powergrid needs Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and heavy bomb launchers
Useless ship. It wouldn't do more than about 1200 dps without at least 6 citadel launchers, lv5 bonus and damage mods included. The explosion velocity bonus would also by pointless for a ship meant to kill supercaps. ------------------------------------------
|
Taipion
Caldari Operations Control United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 06:11:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Culmen In order for the Black Ops to be a counter to SCs you'll need to solve several issues 1) The new addition must be extremely effective against SCs 2) The new addition must be less effective against Dreads 3) The new addition must be ineffective against anchorable objects 4) The new addition must be less effective against sub-caps
1) is obvious For 2) Simply put dreads have very little role left in eve, adding another predator is not going to help things 3) similarly you wouldn't want the Black ops to take over the role of capitals, just counter them. 4) Remember, you do not want Black Ops to be the new solo pwn mobile.
solving 3 can be handled by using tracking, but that will do little to help a stationary sieged dread from survival.
An option is to directly target the weapons of an SC. So have an Ewar module that shuts down doomsday weapons and fighter bombers.
Another option is to have a mini dooms day that only affects super caps. RP wise say it plays off the SC's intinsic e-war immunity.
1. but in which way? killing the fighters/bombers with super-bombs? (but giving BOs the ability to nuke fighters/bombers like a pre-nerv-DD, would render SCs completely useless...) 2. see 1. 3. is not necessary 4. As there is usually a SubCap fleet with each SC blob, making BO even weaker against SubCaps will prevent them doing their job against SCs.
There are many things that could be done with BOs, and they need some tweaking for sure, but making anti-SCs off them, would be like building a gun into a knife, so it does better in gunfights...
In general, the more you think about this, the more you realize, dread should have been THE counter to SCs and any caps from the start!
BOOST Dreads!
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 06:27:00 -
[87]
I think boosting dreads would be a mistake... the gap between carrier to dread to SC is simple too big. a Carrier hull costs about 800 mil? a dread 1.5 bil, and a SC about 16 bil.
Surely there is room between a dread and a SC for a new ship isn't there?
|
Taipion
Caldari Operations Control United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 07:02:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Taipion on 21/07/2011 07:06:07
Originally by: Headerman I think boosting dreads would be a mistake... the gap between carrier to dread to SC is simple too big. a Carrier hull costs about 800 mil? a dread 1.5 bil, and a SC about 16 bil.
Surely there is room between a dread and a SC for a new ship isn't there?
New ship would mean somewhere in 2014...
Look, what do they have?
Carrier: - roughly 1000 dps and a whole lot of support in classic fleet setup - up to 1875 dps when all out dmg, like some do for PvE - or no dmg and insane support with triage, and well, a short life expectation in any fleet fight^^ - can be fittet to reach 3m+ EHP with fleet/command-ship bonus and no expensive stuff, AND still do its job - can take on targets of any size, as you have everything from small drones to fighters
Dread: - some up to 7k dps without stupidly expensive stuff (fit your dread cheap, so insurance pretty much covers it) - very dead very fast in fleet fights - stuck where they are for 10 minutes each siege cycle - only around 1,6m EHP without sacrifice (not DD proof) - only usefull againt structures and caps/SCs
SuperCarrier - see carrier, multiply dmg by about x10, and EHP by x50, and add immune to all forms of...
Titan - the most expensive buildable ship by far - bridge - DD - EHP ~ SuperCarriers - dmg some 15k up to 25k if you really need it - super fleet bonus
As you see, all have their roles, just dreads can¦t do theirs well.
=> Thereby I conclude:
Dreads are much less usefull than carriers, yet cost x1,5 times as much. Dreads are no use against things other than structures/caps, so there is no problem in boosting them. Dreads are stuck where they are in siege, this adds risk in using them, unlike carriers/SCs.
=> And changes like this would actually be good:
- more, MUCH more EHP for dreads would be good, and necessary (some 5m EHP would be fine) - maybe give them big SBs to counter fighter/bomber :-) (seriously, need some gadget against that) - maybe a bit more dmg (should be a bit higher, so so can¦t just repp-away a dreads dmg with a carrier)
Then all those caps would fill there role much better, and dreads would have a role to start with. Carriers are for Support, SuperCarriers are expensive pwnmobiles, Titians are Titans, and Dreads would be cost effective against other caps and other caps only.
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 07:09:00 -
[89]
^^^ +1
|
Taipion
Caldari Operations Control United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 07:23:00 -
[90]
Well, another option would be to remove the no-RR from a dreads Siege, actually, that would do really well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |