| 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) |
Selvin
   |
Posted - 2005.10.03 11:45:00 -
[301]
i think that manticora should have 3rd launcher(even 4rd) slot but also should be unable to fit more than 2 cruise launcher(useless as others SB's hi-slots) ...(but ... from the other hand ... why we (other SB pilots) are crying... Manticora has the smalles amout of PG) :)
look at purifier ... instead of 3rd launcher u can put 2(3)x BCS (u cant do it on f.x Nemesis where (even with v.good skills) u have to put at least 1xMAPC) (it seems that purifier is better than other SB (even Manti))
Manticora's price: CCP cant do nothing with it(coz it depends on players) ... Manticora as most desirable ship has a highest price...
"We want to remove the targetting timer delay and module activation delay when decloaking in a stealth bomber next patch. " - sounds fair (they dont need any other changes)
http://www.agronom.pl/selvin/images/selvint.png |
davidfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 12:13:00 -
[302]
i am agree the suprise factor is the most important the stealth bombers are made whit papaer one or two good hits and they will disapear.
 Originally by: Revalia
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.
DavidFire
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 16:03:00 -
[303]
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.
So months of training and risking lots of isk on named mods shouldn't give you an advantage?
What then, may I ask, should?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Alberta
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 22:09:00 -
[304]
Only just noticed this thread so I only read the first and last pages so far but incase it's not been mentioned... How about 20% reduction to delay per skill level as an additional bonus rather than a straight removal.
P.S.
No need to rush this change, it'll be a good 4-5 months before I get round to training up missile skills. 
P.P.S.
Next patch we want to remove the delay to targeting and module activation when decloaking in a stealth bomber.
Sounds better imo. 
My Thoughts on Game Balance |
Justin Cody
|
Posted - 2005.10.03 23:54:00 -
[305]
so...who's not fitting remote sensor dampners on their manticore? I know my buddy does cause I told him to. You just have to keep range from your target. Turns his sensors to pudding. Even if he CAN lock you its going to take a while :-P
"Ill armed and half starved, they were still desperate men, to whom danger had lost all fears: for what was death that they should shun it to cling to such a life as theirs?"--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 01:24:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Justin Cody
so...who's not fitting remote sensor dampners on their manticore? I know my buddy does cause I told him to. You just have to keep range from your target. Turns his sensors to pudding. Even if he CAN lock you its going to take a while :-P
Who's not using damps as their primary form of EW? The celestis and maulus are your friend. For snipers like the bombers, sensor damps are the only thing that makes sense.
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 - 2005.10.04 08:45:00 -
[307]
Originally by: theRaptor
Originally by: Justin Cody
so...who's not fitting remote sensor dampners on their manticore? I know my buddy does cause I told him to. You just have to keep range from your target. Turns his sensors to pudding. Even if he CAN lock you its going to take a while :-P
Who's not using damps as their primary form of EW? The celestis and maulus are your friend. For snipers like the bombers, sensor damps are the only thing that makes sense.
Yes and no, dampeners have really short optimal range. (I think optimal + falloff is about 90km at max levels with optimal being 30-35km)
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
Kakita Jalaan
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 10:50:00 -
[308]
Stealth Bombers should be able to fit covert ops cloaks, if only to make their description true:
[...]Advanced techniques in spatial distortion technology enable them to potentially fly faster when cloaked than when uncloaked - a fact which, coupled with their considerable firepower, makes them extremely dangerous in the hands of an accomplished pilot.
Just highlighted the considerable firepower because it makes me laugh. The description shows that SBs were originally clearly designed with covert ops cloaks in mind, because the next best cloak slows them down so badly, that even with maxed skills you'll go way slower than when uncloaked.
Covert Ops Frigates would still have their place, because they're designed as something else entirely. They're faster and can use scan probes way faster than usual. If CCP listens to some of the good ideas in this thread, they could potentially become able to use ship scanners while cloaked (nothing else though!). If this isn't a good use for a recon ship, I don't know what is.
______________
Join the Family |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 10:59:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan
Just highlighted the considerable firepower because it makes me laugh. The description shows that SBs were originally clearly designed with covert ops cloaks in mind, because the next best cloak slows them down so badly, that even with maxed skills you'll go way slower than when uncloaked.
You make a better point if you try to use facts.
My Manticore goes 503m/s cloaked.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
nico wurz250
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 11:27:00 -
[310]
Hm this planed changes makes no change to bombers.
The CM do not reach the target if the bomber cloack again before the missle hits.
if you change this (because it is a cruise missle) and rise the missle dmg bonus to 10% (because i make more dmg with my crow may be) then the bomber makes a sense.
.
Support your local xetic member !
|
Shaneyney Mydeago
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 13:18:00 -
[311]
Never before have a seen such an over nerfed ship, with good reason imo i dont think CCP had any clue what to do with them. With the NWO here are some changes that might work. My experiance comes from flying the ammar version the Purifier ( probably the worst off of the 4 ) maybe just a shade more cpu and PG scrap the high for a mid or the high for maybe even 2 lows, this keep with the amarr strategy to tank out everything. slightly better cap times on all 4 ships and of course scrap the recalibration time and maybe make it so f.o.f. cruise missiles will still attack a target if you recloak with all these addition work them out on paper and make all relavent bonus' on the ship directly effected by your covert ops skill and your cloaking skill maybe add a recalibration skill for the insta lock from decloak.
|
nahtoh
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 17:11:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle
If a manticore can sneak up cloaked to an ceptor, decloak, lock and kill it in a like 3 seconds, it sounds terrible unbalanced. There is no defence against that. It would even work against a ceptor with an mwd, if he is killng NPCs.
It seems CCP needs to rethink this a little more, since just removing te delay would clearly not work.
Don't just sit there like a muppet...theres your defense
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but
why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the
problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 19:05:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle
If a manticore can sneak up cloaked to an ceptor, decloak, lock and kill it in a like 3 seconds, it sounds terrible unbalanced. There is no defence against that. It would even work against a ceptor with an mwd, if he is killng NPCs.
It seems CCP needs to rethink this a little more, since just removing te delay would clearly not work.
3 Cruise Missiles aren't enough to pop an inty, especially not one without a tank.
Back when I was a beginner interceptor pilot, a Kestrel with cruise missiles (yes, cruise missiles) required 2 volleys to take a Taranis out (no plate and a single i-a polarised as tank). A Manticore does similar amount of damage.
Though, I still think that bombers should be redesigned to take on larger, more ungainly, ships, where the immense fragility of the bombers will not be of as much issue due to the low signature radius.
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
xkerunx
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 21:27:00 -
[314]
Not sure if anybody has mentioned this.
If so please forgive me for not reading 11 pages of threads.
So what about fitting "Large Turrets" instead of missles if CCP really dont wanna give Nemesis 3 lauchers.
I know turrets wont go with Stealth "BOMBER" and turrets are a lot different than missles, and blah blah blah..., but hey! It's an idea.
What do you guys think?
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 21:35:00 -
[315]
Originally by: xkerunx
Not sure if anybody has mentioned this.
If so please forgive me for not reading 11 pages of threads.
So what about fitting "Large Turrets" instead of missles if CCP really dont wanna give Nemesis 3 lauchers.
I know turrets wont go with Stealth "BOMBER" and turrets are a lot different than missles, and blah blah blah..., but hey! It's an idea.
What do you guys think?
As far as bombs go, you don't need to drop them nor have them propelled to actually be bombs. You can fire them from cannons (see Nuke Cannons, as were used to test the first few US nukes). However, the ammunitions for even projectiles go more towards solid core with warhead than actual bomb.
As for EVE - it's a design thing, really. Bombers look better firing high explosive, self propelled, warheads rather than a cannister with ionized plasma inside.
Oh, and adding turrets isn't something that's going to happen easily. They'll need to update the ship model for that.
Besides this... bring on the stealthy, huge, guns with tiny engines somewhere underneath! Example
--
NikNac is making me a new sig.
It's gonna be so sweet. |
Fallback
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 21:55:00 -
[316]
Hmm, most people want to make the other frigates more powerfull (combat effective) to fullfill their role.
Why not let them have racial weaponery then? Cruise Missiles on a frigate hull?
If that is possible why not 450mm Rails on the Nemesis? The same goes for the other races.
Give them weapons to make them deadly predators.
Why does everybody cling to the cruise missiles? I think that a Nemesis with 4*350mm will be as efficent 
This way there will be no more argueing about all SBs being the same...
The Stealth Bombers do remind me of the WWII subs: Hunting in packs to be most effective.
It should be hard for one to kill a cruiser size vessel, so that not everybody will camp gates cloak shoot everything to piece and be almost uncatchable...
It's just a thought that occured to me
Fallback
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 03:20:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 05/10/2005 03:27:57
ok this will be a rather lengthy post so be warned ahead.
first of all a general statement, never ever ever ever make stealthbombers warp cloaked.
Ive seen 2 mmporgs go down and lose alot of attraction because they missmanaged stealth and it turned sour for those who werent stealthed and got loads of damage packed on them out of the blue.
Now back the the "stealthbomber". The name itself is a paradoxon because
a) it isnt stealthed, it is at best "hidden while nearly immobile".
Camping gates and stations only works in 0.0 due to sentries and concord and most ppl traveling in 0.0 use instant jumps which means the surprise element (on jumpin) tends to be 0.
The only point could be that a scout might pass you in your cloaked state and let his follower jump in. The scout would have to be ignoring local showing xy hostiles he cant pick up on scanner, tad unrealistic.
b) its not a bomber. Ironic as it might sound, afterall its just a hard hitting burst dmg frig with no or limited defences. Even in smaller numbers 2-3 it prolly lacks the ability to punch through any decent bs tank especially since it needs support to hold the victim in place.
If somenoe wants to crunch the numbers i still think 4 taranis will prolly do more dmg then 2 taranis and 2 bombers (dot wise on a plated bs). Keeping that in mind it only leaves us with "minor" targets for our small gang.
We are after indies (every t1 frig can hunt solo indies), t1 frigs (any inty can take them out), AF's (a group of 4 inties can take them out like our small mixed pack) etc etc.
All in all we are looking at a ship which is supposed to attack in larger numbers (gang of atleast 3-4) on soloships. Thats what we call a gank.
At this role the ship (as many other ppl stated) makes a bad stand moving due to its low cap and general chubbyness.
So all in all we have a x million t2 ship which fills a role basically normal interceptors and afs could fit well enough themselfs, bar the cloak - which is itself not all to great since it is (thank god) limited to local cloaking.
Call it my lack of vision or simply the rather early hours but i dont see this ship, even with changes (lower then making it a cloaked warping gankmobile) remotely usefull.
Maybe someone who is all on fire will tell me a scenario this ship could be more usefull then a inty / af fleet?
As i dont see much of a change i support the change and think that all bombers should be somewhat balanced to make up for the difference in firepower towards the caldari model (and that doesnt mean they need a 3rd launcher slot, balance can be achieved by other means i.e. survivability, speed, hitpoints or slotlayout)
To all the players deaming about playing some submarine game, we are playing eve. Submarines in ww2 worked far different then u might imagine, were not as brilliant as you might dream, were one of the most ineffective weapons constructed (due to technology developping faster making them obsolete) and their "packs" were not one of the core elements of submarine warfare but a mere counterreaction to technical changes in convoy and electronic warfare.
Elements like "sphere of detection", "nightattack" and "attacking civilian ships" dont fit in a spacegame because we work in a 3d environment where gamemechanics dont allow "wolfpacks" atm and the majority of your opponents are fitted for combat.
|
Roshan longshot
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 10:59:00 -
[318]
I knew there was a reason NOT to sale that ship.
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter [i]pirate[/i] or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box. |
Brutorus Minor
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 11:07:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Ithildin
Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle
Though, I still think that bombers should be redesigned to take on larger, more ungainly, ships, where the immense fragility of the bombers will not be of as much issue due to the low signature radius.
Just started NPCing in a Hound. Up to 110k isk rats work, not bad for a tiny frig. Nearly got a 750k isk Destroyer, but my rof and lack of wrath mssls didn't help. I think after finnishing all the mssl skills and with better launchers i could get the destroyer rat.
SO, i thought, Extinguisher, only 500K isk bounty , np, I started pecking at him from 130-140km working on his shield, then boom booom lol, I'm gone! wtf, Lesson learned, DONT trust bounty, do some home work. I still have a spare hound and it's fun, but as everyone knows, very weeeeak.
I'm not kidding, i tested this the other day preparing for clone jump, a Velator can tank a conquistador for about 3 seconds, the Hound didnt even last that long against the destroyer.
|
Rigsta
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 15:15:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Revalia
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.
It also renders sensor dampers completely useless against them ><
-----------------------------------------------
My Ideas:
Drones wish list <-- 2 years old :O
|
HonorHarrington
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 17:12:00 -
[321]
Good stuff and well needed.
Stealth bombers should be like subs...cant take alot of punishment but great rear zone raiders. I would reccomend the removal of fire penalty but perhaps to balance give them a larger radius to uncloak if enemy is within like 4000 meters. cruise missiles already give them long range.
Now my next question is...can we have a cruiser version that fires cruise missles? A long range sniper (no cloak) without a bs , but cheaper then the stealth would be great.
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 17:31:00 -
[322]
IMO one of THE most important changes to be done should be the removal of pilots from local when cloaked.
Even if you released a new active module that used very little cap but removed you from local would be handy. Hell you could even make it an illegal module to use in empire space. Kinda makes sense storyline wise...
|
Brain Kill
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 19:46:00 -
[323]
I agree, cloaking should remove you from local. This would make people wonder whether you logged out or are cloaked , which would give that element of surprise.
|
Sammius Hartpac
|
Posted - 2005.10.05 23:52:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Ante
IMO one of THE most important changes to be done should be the removal of pilots from local when cloaked.
Even if you released a new active module that used very little cap but removed you from local would be handy. Hell you could even make it an illegal module to use in empire space. Kinda makes sense storyline wise...
I didnt like that idea intialy.. about not being in local, but i like this idea about having to fit a modual.. thought that might be kind of odd because usualy your name shows up in local before you are finsihed loading the next system up :
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 14:39:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Sammius Hartpac
Originally by: Ante
IMO one of THE most important changes to be done should be the removal of pilots from local when cloaked.
Even if you released a new active module that used very little cap but removed you from local would be handy. Hell you could even make it an illegal module to use in empire space. Kinda makes sense storyline wise...
I didnt like that idea intialy.. about not being in local, but i like this idea about having to fit a modual.. thought that might be kind of odd because usualy your name shows up in local before you are finsihed loading the next system up :
removing ppl from local upon stealth would be one of the worst mistakes this game could make.
A fully cloaked fleet with a bomber (20km disruptors) as a tackler. Something no scout could detect. In addition everyone would fit a cloak to idle on safespots as probes would be totally useless (who would probe an empty system?).
Play world of roguecraft if u like stealth and cloaking, eve doesnt need more imbalance factors.
|
Aeleph
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 15:37:00 -
[326]
Well, if everyone at the SS was running a cloak, what would your probes find, anyway? ;)
|
QwaarJet
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 16:17:00 -
[327]
This thread looked good until CCP announced combat revisited, and the changes like reduced sig radius skills and modules, plus the HP bonus will totally kill bombers and negate this thread.
"Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimter Of Wisdom.Run!" |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 08:31:00 -
[328]
Originally by: QwaarJet
This thread looked good until CCP announced combat revisited, and the changes like reduced sig radius skills and modules, plus the HP bonus will totally kill bombers and negate this thread.
Probably right tbh.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
H0ot
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 12:12:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Hmmm, I see new life for the ECM burst modules....
No you don't. You just think you do. Go try an ECM burst on any frigate sized ship, 480 cap burned in one go is a lot.. a heck of a lot.
|
Helmut 314
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 14:06:00 -
[330]
Originally by: H0ot
Originally by: Ranger 1
Hmmm, I see new life for the ECM burst modules....
No you don't. You just think you do. Go try an ECM burst on any frigate sized ship, 480 cap burned in one go is a lot.. a heck of a lot.
Well, if you check it a bit you will find out that none of the Stealth Bombers can use an ECM burst, a Purifier has 250 cap, with energy management 5 thats 312.5 cap when its full...
The cap of all the stealthbombers is abysmal, 200 for Hound, 215 Manticore, 235 Nemesis and 250 Purifier. Using any kind of ECM on them is difficult.
___________________________________
Trying is the first step of failure
- Homer J Simpson |
| |
|
| 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 |