EVE Search - bombers on sisi, still placeholders though

All Channels

Ships and Modules

bombers on sisi, still placeholders though

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dzikus	Posted - 2005.03.25 12:30:00 - [91] Edited by: Dzikus on 25/03/2005 12:30:37 Dumb bombs in age of spaceship travel is pretty lame idea for me. But it would be nice to use torpedos on these. Anyway, for scouts loving combat it could be nice to travel in one of these and have some more fun when a battle begins. And for covert ops usage - they will have some big boost in system scanning capabilities. Which will hopefuly finally make big use of them in finding hidden enemies. Interesting times ahead. _________________ Never Give Up, Never Surrender!
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.03.25 12:35:00 - [92] Except Scan Probes are still bugged in that they can't scan good safespots. Untill that gets fixed, Scan Probes are damn near useless. /Elve New Video out! Watch me!
Kaboom22	Posted - 2005.03.25 12:54:00 - [93] Originally by: Dzikus Edited by: Dzikus on 25/03/2005 12:30:37 Dumb bombs in age of spaceship travel is pretty lame idea for me. But it would be nice to use torpedos on these. Well maybe torpedos might work, but they would have to have their agility nerfed first. As for dumb fire in age of space, i thinik there would still be room for it, simply because you can fit more bang in a smaller space if you dont have to worry about propulsion. ---
Magunus	Posted - 2005.03.25 13:34:00 - [94] Originally by: Kaboom22 Originally by: Dzikus Edited by: Dzikus on 25/03/2005 12:30:37 Dumb bombs in age of spaceship travel is pretty lame idea for me. But it would be nice to use torpedos on these. Well maybe torpedos might work, but they would have to have their agility nerfed first. As for dumb fire in age of space, i thinik there would still be room for it, simply because you can fit more bang in a smaller space if you dont have to worry about propulsion. Or a lock... Give up an auto-hit for the ability to fire without first getting a lock? Especially with a ship that can get into point blank range without being detected? Sounds good to me... Even at point blank range (ie, between 2500 meters and 5000 meters because of the decloak range) I wouldn't imagine it to be very easy to hit a battleship without guidance. --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Magunus	Posted - 2005.03.25 13:39:00 - [95] Originally by: Tar Magen Edited by: Tar Magen on 25/03/2005 10:29:51 Originally by: Elve Sorrow Well, who says theyre Covert Ops. They're Stealth Bombers. The reason they'll go faster cloaked then uncloaked it because they get 25% speed per level. Pottsey has a point. They're Covert Ops because they're under that tab on SISI. It would be odd if they couldn't fit the covert ops cloaking module. And they would not be faster while cloaked if only using an improved cloak II. (base speed x 0.25 x 2.25 = base speed x 0.5626, which is slower rather than faster). The idea seems to be that they can sneak in and deliver a sudden blast, rather than sustain a high DoT. However, even the Manticore doesn't deliver enough to be a threat to more than a frigate or destroyer, so it's not clear how useful these bombers will be. Ja. I'm guessing alone they'll only be a threat to a tech 1 industrial. So, tech 2 industrials might become more popular just to sustain fire from one of these. In small groups, though, they'd be a threat to a battleship. Particularly if those stealth modules make it in. Battleships would have a tough time getting a lock or hitting once they have one. But again, this means that the current missile system would need to be changed, cause one cruise missile would seriously screw these things up. Hey... how about this? Mount a cloak and a stealth module. Decloak, activate stealth to increase BS lock time, lock, fire, recloak (which you could concievably do if the enemy didn't yet have a lock on you). Move around to another position, rinse and repeat. The bomber couldn't prevent the BS from just warping away, but one ship can't do everything... --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.03.25 13:50:00 - [96] Edited by: Grimpak on 25/03/2005 13:50:59 only things that the bombers would need to be deadly to bigger ships (as they are intended to): - ability to cloak even if locked (kinda hard and I would see many peeps screaming "OMGNERF!1") - they should have an extended delay between recloak. something like 60 seconds? like that they would be in the open while they would be shooting missiles. Perfect sitting ducks to the faster frigates/intys (specially intys) - ability to use torps, instead of cruise missiles, while having Rof and speed bonus to them. (bombers are suposed to be heavy pounders) ....that, coupled with the stats that are in SiSi, they would be what a bomber should be: frail, slow and capable of dishing out very nasty damage. ...ofc that the missile changes would needed to be made if they could implement this. ------------------- Quote: Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
Jack Amarr	Posted - 2005.03.25 14:11:00 - [97] i say bombers would be better based on the destroyer models. bit more chunkyer. -------------------------- Amarr but not proud of it!
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2005.03.25 14:16:00 - [98] Originally by: Jack Amarr i say bombers would be better based on the destroyer models. bit more chunkyer. Except... Destroyers are strictly turret ships (all of 'em, even Caldari) and Bombers are strictly missile ships (ditto). That doesn't make much sense. Besides, bombers aren't supposed to be 'chunky', they're supposed to be frail and easily destroyed by fighters, but able to heavily damage large, slow objects. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Arimas Talasko	Posted - 2005.03.25 15:14:00 - [99] Who ever heard of bombers bombing with cruise missiles, shouldn't it at least be torps, as numerous people have remarked Supremacy Keepin it Real
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.25 17:18:00 - [100] ôWell, who says theyre Covert Ops. They're Stealth Bombers.ö They are listed under Covert op ships on the market which makes them a Covert op ship. They even have Stealth in the name which is a part of covert ops. Changeing subject the other reson I hope covert cloak is used is normal T2 cloak would eat up to much CPU at 60 for the cloak and 120 for the 2 missile weapons puts you at 180 now fit in the 2 lowest CPU blasters 10 CPU each and your left with 30 CPU free for 4 mid slots and 2 low slots. I find that hard to believe. ThatÆs the Gallante ship. A covert cloak would give you enough CPU to fit modules into the mid and low slots. A while ago there was bomb ammo on singularity I wonder if that ammo is coming back? ô(Waits for Pottsey to claim Helios' are a good shieldtank)ö Sorry cannot resist and you make that sound like they are not good. They can have x4 more hitpoints along with 2 shield hardeners and no cap problems over T1 frigates. As frigateÆs go I thought that was good, 813 shield hitpoints and 11.1 hitpoints per second. Not as tough as an Assault Frigates but then again they shouldnÆt be. Which isnÆt that bad compared to other popular frigate like an Incursus which have 200 shield hitpoints and after fitting 2 shield hardeners you only have 1 mid slot free which if you fit a small shield booster gives you 10 hitpoints per second and you have cap problems. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.03.25 17:25:00 - [101] I'm sure it is. I'm not contesting it. I'm just noticing you jumping on the 'Passive Shieldtanking ftw' tour everytime it's remotely mentioned. On the other hand. I still think its crap on a Covert Ops. Woo, shieldtank a 30mill ship. Grab a Punisher, add 3 hardners, an Armor rep. Better tank, and it only cost you 1mill (And thats assuming you use tech2 Armor rep!) /Elve New Video out! Watch me!
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.25 17:37:00 - [102] ôI'm sure it is. I'm not contesting it. I'm just noticing you jumping on the 'Passive Shieldtanking ftw' tour everytime it's remotely mentioned.ö I misunderstood you then before. But youÆre right about the passive tanking stuff. Trying to cut down how much I mention it now unless itÆs really needed or a direct question about it. If you didnÆt bring up shield tanking I wouldnÆt have mentioned it in this thread and I dont plan to mention it again. Hey and I am getting better I even got to page 6 of this tread before mentioning it. 5 weeks ago that would have been page 2. But I promise to try and cut down any talking of passive tanking. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Vicker Lahn'se	Posted - 2005.03.25 17:45:00 - [103] Originally by: Nero Scuro Originally by: Jack Amarr i say bombers would be better based on the destroyer models. bit more chunkyer. Except... Destroyers are strictly turret ships (all of 'em, even Caldari) and Bombers are strictly missile ships (ditto). That doesn't make much sense. Besides, bombers aren't supposed to be 'chunky', they're supposed to be frail and easily destroyed by fighters, but able to heavily damage large, slow objects. Actualy, destroyers in real life were used to attack battleships in swarms and launched torpedoes. Destroyers in real life were the tiny ships meant to swarm big ships. I wouldn't really call them "bombers", though. Just thought I'd interject that random thought...
Arte	Posted - 2005.03.25 17:49:00 - [104] Freaked a moment when I looked at the grid use, even when I factored in the bonuses. Then forgot about engineering skill!! Hope we get a chance to play with them on the test server first. Surely they'll give us a chance to test them first instead of releasing them and then nerfing them.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.25 18:28:00 - [105] I sort of agree that it should be torps instead of cruise, since right now a taranis will outdamage all these bombers... even the caldari one.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.03.25 22:06:00 - [106] Not from 50+ km. "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
Tar Magen	Posted - 2005.03.25 22:43:00 - [107] Hmm. I wonder how well FoF cruise missiles would get around the target lock delay. Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.
H0ot	Posted - 2005.03.25 23:59:00 - [108] Edited by: H0ot on 26/03/2005 00:00:40 Why not make it rockets, with INSANE damage/RoF bonuses? Something about an all-Caldari Navy Rocket Launcher Raven spamming Thorn's has always appealed to me. Oh and as they are right now, they do look a little useless. Hopefully Covert Ops Cloak will be an option, or atleast something to help with lock times. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2005.03.26 00:06:00 - [109] Originally by: Vicker Lahn'se Actualy, destroyers in real life were used to attack battleships in swarms and launched torpedoes. Destroyers in real life were the tiny ships meant to swarm big ships. I wouldn't really call them "bombers", though. Just thought I'd interject that random thought... Yeah, but destroyers ingame do exactly the opposite of what bombers will (probably) do. Destroyers - shred Frigates. Bombers - attack Battleships? ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.26 00:32:00 - [110] Originally by: Maya Rkell Not from 50+ km. At 50km, battleships will hit you with their guns, and 50km is nothing for a taranis.
Roy Focker	Posted - 2005.03.26 01:12:00 - [111] Edited by: Roy Focker on 26/03/2005 01:14:42 This is not looking good. -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- I am not paying $15 a month to play a immature a-hole.
Cracken	Posted - 2005.03.26 01:34:00 - [112] yes they should be allowed too use torps because bombers role is too destroy very large targets aka battleships only problem is the fact that they're stealth bombers maybe make 2 bomber classes. 1 can use cloaks but has less firepower. 1 that can't use cloaks but has tremendous firepower can launch torps and generally cause massive havoc. Something like a tristan developed by roden shipyards. basically these ships pack a gruesome punch 15% thermal torp damage per level and maybe high resistances. They should have light weight too facilitate delivering their weapons. Imho stealth bombers are only good for scaring someone not much else.
Naal Morno	Posted - 2005.03.26 02:07:00 - [113] Edited by: Naal Morno on 26/03/2005 02:07:44 Can I have your stuff? (to the 2 posts above dude) Your Heavy Neutron Blaster II perfectly strikes Serpentis Chief Sentinel, wrecking for 660.4 damage.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.03.26 12:55:00 - [114] Originally by: Maya Rkell Not from 50+ km. without speed bonus on missles you are not very usefull from 50km + your tacklers would have killed that ship before you even hit Wanna fly with me?
Magunus	Posted - 2005.03.26 16:48:00 - [115] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Maya Rkell Not from 50+ km. without speed bonus on missles you are not very usefull from 50km + your tacklers would have killed that ship before you even hit Well, true, but that's comparing a single bomber against a group. Now if we presume two groups, both being comprised of elite frigs, cruisers and battleships, there's more of a point. Do the interceptors tackle, or kill the bombers? Interceptors also have to worry about assault frigs. If they go for the you (in the bomber) your buddy in the battleship is free and clear. Using the caldari bomber, with long range targeting 4, you'd be able to lock at around 84 km. Presuming an enemy interceptor has a MWD fitted, he'd be able to go, what? 4km per second? That'd mean he'd take about 30 seconds to get to you, after adding in the time it takes to notice you and then to alter course and accelerate. That's enough time for the bomber to get off 1 salvo, and then to recloak if he's lucky. It'd be really tight, though. Could go either way. That just adds to the fun. :P I'd say that's fair. If the bad guy is coming straight for you, your own interceptors can either catch him if they're fast enough, or leave it up to assault frigs or evem cruisers since that interceptor's transversal will be horrible. If those stealth modules aren't vaporware, they'd also help bombers quite a bit against larger ships at longer ranges. Given their cloaked speed bonuses, I'd be far more likely to fit a stealth mod than an afterburner, since I'd be doing most of my moving around cloaked. It's not the end-all, be-all of ships, granted, but it's pretty decent. Especially if you have 2 or 3 of them in a mixed group with some other bigger ships. --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.26 18:24:00 - [116] Erm, cruise missiles are not supposed to be good on frigs... But the bombers don't do enough damage to justify their training or cost. They NEED to use torpedos. And the caldari one NEEDS to have one of its launchers ripped away before its released. Or, the other ones need an extra launcher. Caldari shouldn't have more missile slots. They can always get some velocity bonus or something, to make them distinct. Otherwise the caldari one will be the only one worth using... 50% more damage and no drawback to this is certainly not a way to make the other ones worth training for. The gallente one in particular is a bit sad. Its only got two lowslots for ballistic controls, which you'll need if you want to even compare to the caldari one.
The Enslaver	Posted - 2005.03.26 18:54:00 - [117] Ouch, agreeing with Selim. Has to be torps... They need a special launcher with same PG/CPU reqs as standard launchers that can fit a few torps with a 10 second ish RoF to make them useful. Cruise missiles don't have the damage required, and they will be taken out by a single defender. You fire at something from 50km, and it has enough time to load defenders and fire enough off to counter the cruise missiles. Hence, if cruise missiles must be used - do both of these: Give a 300% boost to missile HP's, so it takes three defenders each - and increase the damage bonus to 10%. -------- FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.03.26 19:27:00 - [118] Psst, you don't have the reqs to fit 3 launchers, Selim. So heh. And I can see a LOT of uses for these ships as-is. Stop whining :/ "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
Atandros	Posted - 2005.03.26 19:40:00 - [119] Originally by: The Enslaver Cruise missiles don't have the damage required, and they will be taken out by a single defender. You fire at something from 50km, and it has enough time to load defenders and fire enough off to counter the cruise missiles. But, er...their whole point is to get into a good position, and then fire (else why the extra speed when cloaked boost?)
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.03.26 19:41:00 - [120] Originally by: Atandros But, er...their whole point is to get into a good position, and then fire (else why the extra speed when cloaked boost?) Because otherwise they would be even more useless then they are as is? /Elve New Video out! Watch me!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: 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.