| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
DarK
   |
Posted - 2005.09.30 02:13:00 -
[271]
I need more cpu on manticore.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 11:36:00 -
[272]
\ /
Another idea would be to have a seperate "combat cloak" instead for use with stealth bombers without the penaltys but just removing the silly cnerfs will do me.
Real men, play Rugby |
Aeleph
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 12:52:00 -
[273]
The bomber, for me, should be quick to strike, but maybe not so quick to get away.
The time it takes to cause damage with a bomber, should be somewhere close to the time it takes to lock it down (whether that's big ships lock time, or interceptor approach+lock).
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 14:11:00 -
[274]
 Originally by: Jim SteeleAnother idea would be to have a seperate "combat cloak" instead for use with stealth bombers without the penaltys but just removing the silly cnerfs will do me.[/quote
Just need to add a +100% damage modifier for 5 seconds after you uncloak that really isn't a +100% damage modifier and a tacky little graphics effect!
(ahhh, my JE/JD days...)
|
Brain Kill
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 20:07:00 -
[275]
There definately needs to be either a cloak for stealth bombers or a bonus so we can use the covert cloaks. It just doesn't seem right that the lower grade covert ships get the covert cloak and 'better' covert ships. And one thing I noticed:
Covert bombers
Covert cloak
I see a link  |
SauronTheMage
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 20:23:00 -
[276]
On a side note though, the Insurance prices should be fixed for these Tech 2 ships. I just got my manticore finally (for 19 mil) and went to insure it. The premium insurance price is just over $900k, and insures for ONLY $3.xx mil. This is nuts as the ship is a tech 2 and worth alot more then a lousy $3 payout value.
|
Gabriel BriGGs
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 20:44:00 -
[277]
This has probably been said but I"m not gona read through all the pages to see if it has or not..
But obviously the 10 second (cloaking 5) wait before lock is crazy.. but i think taking it off completly is to much of a.. whts the opposite of a nerf? lol.
I think a covert ops ship is what, 5 seconds before lock time if you have cloaking 5? I thin that would be good for a covert bomber too. I think that would be a bit more fair.
Warpign while cloaked with a bomber.. i dont know.. that seems abit more unfair also. I mean you can easily still sneak up on someone.. just warp in.. and cloak wheny ou can.. and then you can still move at a normal speed atleast to get to your target. Its the targets fault if he decides to sit there, and i guarantee you some*****y people will still sit there even though they've seen you warp in, and then cloak. Obviously its not as "Covert" as it could be, but i think takign off the pre wait lock and letting it warp when cloak would be turning that thing a bit to deadly. and up goes the price for covert op bombers again to 40mil for a crappy nemisis.
--------------------------------------------
This is my new sig. |
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 21:57:00 -
[278]
Lock time is fairly irrelevant on a CovOps because you're not going to be locking targets very often. But a bomber attacking at close range has about 10 seconds to obliterate it's target or get blown up. And bombers lock quite slowly due to the cloaker, slower than other frigate-sized ships, so the target will almost certainly start shooting first.
I think removing the delay is a sensible, balanced de-nerf. It makes bombers much more useful without turning them into instant death machines, which adding cloak-in-warp ability would do.
|
Geldorf Drakar
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 22:45:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Geldorf Drakar on 30/09/2005 22:45:26
just saw this, and now ive got a really big silly grin on my face.....i rarely post, anyways, GOOD FRELLING MOVE CCP U ROXOR ME BOXORS
btw CCP Hammer, you can have my 3 first born children as well as my left leg and one testicle..........all hail CCP...WOOT |
Moridin
|
Posted - 2005.09.30 23:13:00 -
[280]
since im a lazy bastard. can anyone that has read this thread all the way summ up what changes will be. and what changes look like are inn due to poppilar oppinion |
Ranger 1
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 03:21:00 -
[281]
Ah yes, I forgot about the dratted huge cap use on ECM bursts now.
|
Lyra VX
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 21:52:00 -
[282]
The Manticore does need to be better at using its missiles. That's what the Caldari "do".
It is unfair on the other three though, so how do we boost them in non-missile ways? We give them an extra low or med slot each. The result is the Manticore being the uber missile spewing beast, and the other three being less powerful but more versatile.
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 22:34:00 -
[283]
I give you 5 drachma and my finest goat for the changes.
|
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 00:18:00 -
[284]
Make the targetting penalty void for Stealths and make them more agile as well as increase their cpu.
......so say I Lucian Alucard of the blood line blah blah blah blah no one really cares anymore!
The best joke ever!!!!
[url]http://www.livejournal.com/users/sweet__kitty/40953.html?mode=reply |
0CISCOKID0
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 00:40:00 -
[285]
I'm going to come at this concept from a different direction using what stealth technology is capable of today.
F117's and B2's are stealthy from take-off. They remain unseen on approach, during targeting, and afterward. Stealth is their armor/shield.
That being said, here's how I would suggest CCP approach this:
1) SB's should be able to warp while cloaked.
2) SB's should be able to warp in, target and fire while cloaked. BUT, once they begin firing, cap use goes up dramatically - so much so that they can remain cloaked only for a short period of time, say 30 seconds, with appropriate bonuses for higher SB/cloaking skill levels. Lower skill levels would allow a player to get off, say 2 volleys and higher SL's could get off 3 or 4. Default cap recharge would be adjusted such that this can only be done once every 5 minutes or so. AND, the SB would not be able to warp out while cloaked until after a recharge time of ,say, 4 minutes.
3) Targeted ships should have a new sensor module that would, in proportion to the above time limits allow them an increasing chance to target and hit the SB. The longer the SB remains in the area the higher the probability that the sensor module will allow a target lock.
4) SB's should have minimal shield/armor ratings. Stealth is their protection. They should be able to cloak/uncloak instantly, thus protecting them from gate campers. But the above-mentioned time limits would not allow the SB to remain hidden if he/she decides to take on the ganker. They would only be able to cloak and warp out.
5) SB's should be less agile than a frigate since they carry heavier weapons and ECM. Fitting an MWD/AB and using it while cloaked reduces the sensor time mentioned in #3 above would decrease the targeting time by 75%. Stealth is a passive attribute - you can't hide a larger exhaust plume.
That's my idea. Hope CCP doesn't get too tired looking through this whole to find it.
Live well, die honorably.
Regards
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 09:26:00 -
[286]
Originally by: 0CISCOKID0
I'm going to come at this concept from a different direction using what stealth technology is capable of today.
F117's and B2's are stealthy from take-off. They remain unseen on approach, during targeting, and afterward. Stealth is their armor/shield.
That being said, here's how I would suggest CCP approach this:
1) SB's should be able to warp while cloaked.
2) SB's should be able to warp in, target and fire while cloaked. BUT, once they begin firing, cap use goes up dramatically - so much so that they can remain cloaked only for a short period of time, say 30 seconds, with appropriate bonuses for higher SB/cloaking skill levels. Lower skill levels would allow a player to get off, say 2 volleys and higher SL's could get off 3 or 4. Default cap recharge would be adjusted such that this can only be done once every 5 minutes or so. AND, the SB would not be able to warp out while cloaked until after a recharge time of ,say, 4 minutes.
3) Targeted ships should have a new sensor module that would, in proportion to the above time limits allow them an increasing chance to target and hit the SB. The longer the SB remains in the area the higher the probability that the sensor module will allow a target lock.
4) SB's should have minimal shield/armor ratings. Stealth is their protection. They should be able to cloak/uncloak instantly, thus protecting them from gate campers. But the above-mentioned time limits would not allow the SB to remain hidden if he/she decides to take on the ganker. They would only be able to cloak and warp out.
5) SB's should be less agile than a frigate since they carry heavier weapons and ECM. Fitting an MWD/AB and using it while cloaked reduces the sensor time mentioned in #3 above would decrease the targeting time by 75%. Stealth is a passive attribute - you can't hide a larger exhaust plume.
That's my idea. Hope CCP doesn't get too tired looking through this whole to find it.
Live well, die honorably.
Regards
1) Believe it or not, but Covert Ops has two uses: scanning and stealthy possitioning through warping while cloaked. Can't do jack all otherwise, so giving that role to a ship that can actually do decent damage means you'll remove most of what the covert Ops are used for.
2) Cloaking Devices doesn't use capacitor. They nerf the ship in other areas instead. Also, launchers doesn't use capacitor. Also, do you realize what sort of griefing madness this will become!?
3) What? Err... What? So, all ships would be force to tug along a module that will allow a lock (on a ship they cannot lock, cause there's no hit box to target) or possibly autolock (which most sane people really don't want to do)?
4) They already have minimal armour and shield ratings.
5) Hmm, not that frigates are that agile compared to, say, inties, but...
Ok, to summarize what I think about all this. Your one good point was number 1, but that has complications on the role of covert ops (frankly, merely scanning isn't good at all, unless you have a tertiary alt to sue for this so that you just have to log on that char). Thus Covert Ops would need to be boosted for new and more exciting roles.
One such boost might be more CPU to use the high amount of medium slots for sleathy EW.
The rest of the points... It's a 3 million ISK ship, for crying out loud! (manufacturing prices)
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
Brain Kill
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 11:00:00 -
[287]
Edited by: Brain Kill on 02/10/2005 11:03:48
The Idea above Is true but way to overpowered. They shouldn't be able to shoot whilst cloaked, warp yes but not shoot. IMO they should be able to cloak without cap usage but whilst cloaked can only move around (without ab's). So a good SB user would cloak in, scope their target, uncloak passive target and pray to god their prey hasn't noticed them on the overview or just seen them uncloak.
As another Idea you could have stealth bombers impossible to target whilst thier armour is intact, so you have to fof them until thier armour is taken then you can lock them. This would be more like real life, so thier stealth is litteraly thier protection. |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 11:08:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Brain Kill
As another Idea you could have stealth bombers impossible to target whilst thier armour is intact, so you have to fof them until thier armour is taken then you can lock them. This would be more like real life, so thier stealth is litteraly thier protection.
Hello! Turret user here! Amarr and Gallente will thus have absolutely 0 defence against them? (Note how drones require targeting by the drones themselves)
Not to mention the unvulnerable tackler it would be if it never shot it's missiles (FoF doesn't react to EW)
Oh, and rats don't have FoF. Hello, 10/10 complex!
Get real.
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
Brain Kill
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 11:11:00 -
[289]
Ok That Idea has been removed, can you comment on the rest of the post? |
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 15:01:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Ithildin
Note that while Covert Ops can warp cloaked, they still have a 10-ish seconds recalibration time.
Why not give bombers the ability to use all three cloakers, but with different restrictions.
Prototype and Improved cloak - no cloaked warp ability, but no targetting delay either.
CovOps Cloak - the ship can cloak in warp, but you have to suffer a large targetting delay. Something longer than the delay on a CovOps ship, plus maybe a -40% speed bonus so CovOps ships remain more useful for scouting than bombers.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 17:24:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Bombcrater
Why not give bombers the ability to use all three cloakers, but with different restrictions.
Prototype and Improved cloak - no cloaked warp ability, but no targetting delay either.
CovOps Cloak - the ship can cloak in warp, but you have to suffer a large targetting delay. Something longer than the delay on a CovOps ship, plus maybe a -40% speed bonus so CovOps ships remain more useful for scouting than bombers.
Or CCP could make a special Stealth bomber cloak which would be a lot easier.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
-- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure. |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 17:58:00 -
[292]
Ok, now how about balancing stealth bombers against each other? Or, specifically, Manticore vs. the other three :/
Removal of delay sounds spot on though.
---
|
0CISCOKID0
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 20:35:00 -
[293]
POSTED BY ITHILDIN
"1) Believe it or not, but Covert Ops has two uses: scanning and stealthy possitioning through warping while cloaked. Can't do jack all otherwise, so giving that role to a ship that can actually do decent damage means you'll remove most of what the covert Ops are used for.
2) Cloaking Devices doesn't use capacitor. They nerf the ship in other areas instead. Also, launchers doesn't use capacitor. Also, do you realize what sort of griefing madness this will become!?
3) What? Err... What? So, all ships would be force to tug along a module that will allow a lock (on a ship they cannot lock, cause there's no hit box to target) or possibly autolock (which most sane people really don't want to do)?
4) They already have minimal armour and shield ratings.
5) Hmm, not that frigates are that agile compared to, say, inties, but...
Ok, to summarize what I think about all this. Your one good point was number 1, but that has complications on the role of covert ops (frankly, merely scanning isn't good at all, unless you have a tertiary alt to sue for this so that you just have to log on that char). Thus Covert Ops would need to be boosted for new and more exciting roles.
One such boost might be more CPU to use the high amount of medium slots for sleathy EW.
The rest of the points... It's a 3 million ISK ship, for crying out loud! (manufacturing prices"
END QUOTE
1) I don't care if the CO ships are less useful; I'm only talking about SB's.
2) Okay, so I don't know much about SB's - including cap use or lack thereof. Simply said, there has to be a limit to an SB's ability to fight while cloaked. Otherwise we'll have a universe full of SB's running around trying to find other SB's to pop.
3) Yes, that's so; just like they have to tug around WCS's, etc.But, then again, you seem like a smart enough guy, Ithildin. You'll know when and when not to tug one along.
4) You have an idea of what's minimal armor/shield. So do I, but it's prolly different from yours. And I'm only guessing, but I'll bet CCP has a third idea as to what's minimal.
5) What... err, what? What's your point?
To summarize my thoughts. Ithildin, your response to my idea seemed more like a rant or criticism of my lack of experience in the game rather than a refinemenement or redefinition of my ideas - almost like an expert level player showing how much more he knows than the next guy.
Next time...keep it to yourself.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 21:33:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Raem Civrie
Ok, now how about balancing stealth bombers against each other? Or, specifically, Manticore vs. the other three :/
This man is insane. If anything the manticore needds another launcher.
* theRaptor strokes his manticore.
And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 21:39:00 -
[295]
Originally by: 0CISCOKID0
1) I don't care if the CO ships are less useful; I'm only talking about SB's.
Good for us then that CCP do care about comparitive balance. If bombers can warp cloaked then there is no reason to ever fly a covert ops. Unless of course the bomber warp is so horribly slow (due to a low warp speed or high cap burn) that its pretty much uesless.
Cloak warping is a bit to much when combined with a low recal timer and the firepower of a bomber. Though it would be fun being uber while everyone desperately trained for bombers.
And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 21:47:00 -
[296]
Right, so either they hot fixed it, or the "Targeting Timer delay" is something other than Recalibration Time. Manticores on TQ need not wait for recalibration timer to lock targets.
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
Julien Derida
|
Posted - 2005.10.02 23:28:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Ithildin
Right, so either they hot fixed it, or the "Targeting Timer delay" is something other than Recalibration Time. Manticores on TQ need not wait for recalibration timer to lock targets.
Not true as far as I can tell :)
----------------------------------------
Chief Inspector of the Style Police - FRICK |
Merdekka Radaen
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 01:04:00 -
[298]
I've seen at least two people respond to my belief that bombers don't have good fitting with a rebuttal along the following lines:
"The fitting on the Manticore is fine, I can easily fit <insert list of expensive named/faction mods here> with my <insert all relevant fitting skills maxed here>."
Thank you for making my point for me.
|
Revalia
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 02:48:00 -
[299]
Dont make it cloack in warp because that will make it to powerfull.
But could you silence the sound of cloacking when you cloack because right now everyone at any range (i tried at 150km from a friend) can hear you. It's like shouting a cloacked ship has arrived everyone warp out, and completly lose the element of suprise.
By silencing the sound the enemy would have to be paying close attention to his overview to see you arriving.
Also could you look into npc locking range? right now a 8k bounty angel frig will be able to lock you over 150k and render the cloack useless unless you warp out and back in again.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 09:20:00 -
[300]
Edited by: theRaptor on 03/10/2005 09:22:44
Originally by: Merdekka Radaen
I've seen at least two people respond to my belief that bombers don't have good fitting with a rebuttal along the following lines:
"The fitting on the Manticore is fine, I can easily fit <insert list of expensive named/faction mods here> with my <insert all relevant fitting skills maxed here>."
Thank you for making my point for me.
Thats because *no* ship should be able to have the best fittings without uber skillz and items. Noobs should not be fitting 7 425mm rails and all damage mods on a megathron, it just shouldn't happen, and doesn't. With my skills I can.
If you don't have:
Eng V
Elec V
Weapon upgrades V
and probably advanced weap upgrades IV
You should have to fit CPU's and RCU's to get the best weapon's and support (tanking/ECM whatever) on. With weapon upgrades IV I needed a CPU II to fit the ECM on my Manticore.
And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |