EVE Search - Stealth Bombers

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Stealth Bombers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Ante	Posted - 2005.10.07 14:12:00 - [331] 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. I know eh... first they say they're going to make bombers viable, then they completely wreck them again. I started training for bombers when I saw this thread but I'm having second thoughts now
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.07 15:27:00 - [332] Did you read the dev blog? First of all, it didn't say anything about a sig radius skill. Second of all... how are the signature radius skills going to remotely ruin the Stealth Bombers? I mean, they aren't even certain they are going to add those modules, let alone have they told us how they are going to work! And thirdly, the current stealth bombers damage are going to be affect against anything short of an interceptor fitting those modules anyways! You are aware that the cruise missiles fired from stealth bombers have about 50m explosion radius (same as light missiles)? -- NikNac is making me a new sig. It's gonna be so sweet.
QwaarJet	Posted - 2005.10.07 16:53:00 - [333] I have flown bombers for many months, so please don't tell me how my ship works. anything that reduces sig radius is bad for bombers.End of story. "Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimter Of Wisdom.Run!"
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.10.07 23:15:00 - [334] 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. Tis true, and I agreed with the person that pointed out I had overlooked that fact..... over a week ago.
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.10.07 23:25:00 - [335] Originally by: QwaarJet I have flown bombers for many months, so please don't tell me how my ship works. anything that reduces sig radius is bad for bombers.End of story. Your not the only one QwaarJet. And frankly, all 3 points that Ithildin made are quite accurate. Depending on how the new module is implemented... the stealth bombers may very well be the only ships in the game to not be adversely affected against most ships... and if the suck down too much cap (or are percentage based) many 'ceptor pilots may forego them due to the inherently low signature radius they already have. The only thing I'm a bit worried about is a narrowing of the field of ships that a couple of bombers can take out with an alpha strike, due to increased resistances and the 25% bonus if that goes through. The testing should be interesting, and the stealths will be one I'll be giving considerable feedback on from the test server.
QwaarJet	Posted - 2005.10.08 01:22:00 - [336] You can't really test Bombers on the server properly.You have to buy them as they never stock them up in the fight club hangar. "Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimter Of Wisdom.Run!"
Zac Paris	Posted - 2005.10.08 19:34:00 - [337] Among the proposed changes I'd really like to see new models for the stealth bombers. In the real world SBs are usually the most expensive, sophisticated and weirdest looking things out there. It'd be cool if that was reflected in EVE. http://www.coalescencecorp.com
KingsGambit	Posted - 2005.10.08 21:32:00 - [338] While these are being looked into anyway, how about: - Halving their mass - Giving them all 5 extra PG - Giving them all a 100m/s uncloaked base speed increase - Giving them all 50% more cap - Giving them a boost to agility - Giving them all 200m^3 increase to cargo (cruise missiles are not small) As it is they are not very much fun to fly and my indy moves faster than these frigs. How in Eve is it they seem to weigh 50% more than heavily armoured assault frigates? -------------
Calian	Posted - 2005.10.08 22:58:00 - [339] Personally I think one thing that would really help stealth bombers is if they could use AB while cloaked. Covert ops have warping while cloaked, and that makes sense, they're scouts, meant to cover large distances while hidden. Stealth bombers on the other hand need to cover short distances quickly, and they already have the special ability to move faster while cloaked (which is basically a moot point since their base speed is so slow) but why not expand on that with being able to use AB. Would give each ship it's own useful ability. Covert ops can warp while cloaked, stealth bombers can AB while cloaked. This would help a lot since stealth bombers need to warp in somewhere, cloak, and then set up a good firing position, which is hard to do with their current slow speeds. ------------------------- I hate everyone, except you.
Ante	Posted - 2005.10.09 00:38:00 - [340] Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them all 5 extra PG They don't really need that much. Especially the Amarr and Minmatar bombers. Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them all a 100m/s uncloaked base speed increase Bombers typically aren't fast compared to other fighter planes. Why would they be in EVE? Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them all 50% more cap Then they would have more cap than any assault frigate? If you give bombers survivability then you need to take away damage potential. Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them a boost to agility They're heavy, they're fat, they're slow, so it isn't as though they're going to be very agile. Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them all 200m^3 increase to cargo (cruise missiles are not small) You don't think that battleship sized weapons would take a bit of room inside the ship? Originally by: KingsGambit As it is they are not very much fun to fly and my indy moves faster than these frigs. How in Eve is it they seem to weigh 50% more than heavily armoured assault frigates? Makes sense to me. A weapon that's designed to be carrier on a ship that many times bigger is sure to weigh quite a lot. Not to mention the huge and heavy missiles you're carrying?
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.09 02:10:00 - [341] Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 09/10/2005 02:10:37 Originally by: Ante Bombers typically aren't fast compared to other fighter planes. Why would they be in EVE? Really, it's a nitpicky thing. I'd expect my t2 frigate to go faster than its t1 variant, no matter what.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.09 02:10:00 - [342] Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 09/10/2005 02:10:21 Double post, sorry
DarK	Posted - 2005.10.09 05:23:00 - [343] Oh dear, these things are slow. I tell ya, don't use these in pure blind, as there are a few 200 AU warps. Quote: Then they would have more cap than any assault frigate? If you give bombers survivability then you need to take away damage potential. How is this cap being used? A Harpy will be using this cap for a tank, whereas the bomber will be using it to actually get from A to B. Small cap battery II is a default module, and when something becomes default there is a problem. A Harpy has 275/150 whereas a manticore has 215/175, increasing that of the manticore by 50% will yield practically the same cap/s on both ships. So oh noes, it has the same cap recharge, it might tank?! it has crappy resists and not enough spare cpu for hardners or the like. Quote: Bombers typically aren't fast compared to other fighter planes. Why would they be in EVE? I think bombers in "real life" go faster than fighters. I think it was mach 2.5 for f-16 and mach 3.0 for b52? I could be wrong, I just googled it. RL isn't good to use either. Quote: You don't think that battleship sized weapons would take a bit of room inside the ship? I guess you have a point, and seeing as the ship isn't really a solo ship it would create some sort of teamwork, ie carrying ammo for your bombers. Quote: Makes sense to me. A weapon that's designed to be carrier on a ship that many times bigger is sure to weigh quite a lot. Not to mention the huge and heavy missiles you're carrying? Well logically yes, but this is a game which means some things don't make sense and shouldn't for the sake of fun and gameplay. We are seeing oversized modules being nerfed somewhat, with the mass increase on plates. The difference is this is an intentional oversizing. I think the ships need to be addressed on some of the issues, but boosting all atributes would probably unbalance them. They need more cpu, bit more pg, reduction in mass, increase in speed, more CAP FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
Bombcrater	Posted - 2005.10.09 07:25:00 - [344] Bombers simply inherit the warp capacitor usage of the T1 hull they are based on, so it's only a problem for the Manticore and to a lesser extent the Hound. The other two bombers don't suffer from it. They only use a little more cap than a Harpy. The warp cap use figures from the db are : Harpy - 0.00000134 Nemesis - 0.00000167 Purifier - 0.00000167 Hound - 0.00000224 Manticore - 0.00000268 Kestrel - 0.00000268 You're dead right about Pure Blind. The Manticore becomes a huge liability as soon as you hit a system like X-70. I tend to fly a Nemesis on fleet ops because of that and keep the Manti for solo hunting, where taking five jumps to clear the system won't have your corp mates laughing at you on TS
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2005.10.09 12:30:00 - [345] I'm just curious why "stealth painters" or any other sig-reducing modules would matter at all for Bombers? They're anti-battleship frigs.. If anything that stupid sig radius bonus for cruise missiles should be removed entirely. It was a half baked way of making them "useful" by having them gank frigs instead of the things they are supposed to be good at. None of the new changes to tanking and dmg mod stacking apply to Bombers in any special ways that they don't apply to other ships. Quite frankly you only need three things to make bombers useful: - grid to fit a decent setup (too high for cruise atm) - bonus towards, or removal of sensor recalibration penalty (already done) - some extra hp (hello, next patch) Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.09 14:13:00 - [346] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I'm just curious why "stealth painters" or any other sig-reducing modules would matter at all for Bombers? They're anti-battleship frigs.. If anything that stupid sig radius bonus for cruise missiles should be removed entirely. It was a half baked way of making them "useful" by having them gank frigs instead of the things they are supposed to be good at. Nah, that'd make SENSE. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Yseult Atreus	Posted - 2005.10.09 15:31:00 - [347] "I think bombers in "real life" go faster than fighters. I think it was mach 2.5 for f-16 and mach 3.0 for b52? I could be wrong, I just googled it. RL isn't good to use either." Oh indeed, you are wrong. But wouldn't a Mach 3 BUFF be a sight to see?
DarK	Posted - 2005.10.09 15:53:00 - [348] Superiority complex ftw! Google tells lies:(
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.09 16:03:00 - [349] B52 - Mach 0.86 F-16 - Mach 2 at altitude B-2 Spirit (B-2 stealth Bomber) - Mach 0.85 F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Bomber) - "High Subsonic", which means less than Mach 1 -- NikNac is making me a new sig. It's gonna be so sweet.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.10 02:10:00 - [350] Originally by: Ithildin F-16 - Mach 2 at altitude B-2 Spirit (B-2 stealth Bomber) - Mach 0.85 In my humble opinion this means bombers should be as fast as T1 frigates.
Ante	Posted - 2005.10.10 11:29:00 - [351] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Originally by: Ithildin F-16 - Mach 2 at altitude B-2 Spirit (B-2 stealth Bomber) - Mach 0.85 In my humble opinion this means bombers should be as fast as T1 frigates. Sorry, but how exactly do you reason that from the figure provided? The numbers indicate to me that the stealth bombers should move at 1/2 the speed of T1 frigates. Fortunately they don't. They do however handle worse. If you assumed that you had two equal sized vessels in a body of water with one weighing twice the other you would expect the heavier mass to require more energy to turn, so with the same energy applied it would merely take longer. What's wrong with bombers being a bit sluggish?
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2005.10.10 14:02:00 - [352] Originally by: Thanos Firebringer There people go, wanting to ruin the game again. Hey here's an idea, lets not make everything the same so you have options in what to fly. Or how about just doing away with all the races and making just 1 ship type so all the people and want equality will stop crying. Then we won't have to hear about some ships being different then a similar ship of a different race. I mean seriously, WHY DO YOU WANT THEM ALL THE SAME???? If you like the 3 launchers that much, TRAIN CALDARI FRIGATE 5 AND QUIT CRYING. Nuff said. Words cannot express my opinion about your comment. Do you truely believe that everyone should fly a Manticore? *sigh.. uh.
Rob Boberton	Posted - 2005.10.10 15:50:00 - [353] Originally by: Anjerrai Meloanis Originally by: Thanos Firebringer There people go, wanting to ruin the game again. Hey here's an idea, lets not make everything the same so you have options in what to fly. Or how about just doing away with all the races and making just 1 ship type so all the people and want equality will stop crying. Then we won't have to hear about some ships being different then a similar ship of a different race. I mean seriously, WHY DO YOU WANT THEM ALL THE SAME???? If you like the 3 launchers that much, TRAIN CALDARI FRIGATE 5 AND QUIT CRYING. Nuff said. Words cannot express my opinion about your comment. Do you truely believe that everyone should fly a Manticore? *sigh.. I think the comment was perfectly cromulent. I already fly a manticore and I'm training to fly a hound so I can do better DPS in gangs. Don't cry for removing diversity just because you can't handle an extra week of training.
James Lyrus	Posted - 2005.10.10 17:03:00 - [354] So does this mean that a manticore is the ultimate tackler now? Trundle up to a hostile BS, get nice and close, tell your team mates to warp, and decloak, scramble and damp just as they arrive? And of course, unload a few cruise missiles into them just for kicks. OK, I suppose that _does_ mean you have to by lying in wait for them beforehand, but ... Investment Opportunity:
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.10 17:53:00 - [355] Originally by: Rob Boberton Originally by: Anjerrai Meloanis Originally by: Thanos Firebringer There people go, wanting to ruin the game again. Hey here's an idea, lets not make everything the same so you have options in what to fly. Or how about just doing away with all the races and making just 1 ship type so all the people and want equality will stop crying. Then we won't have to hear about some ships being different then a similar ship of a different race. I mean seriously, WHY DO YOU WANT THEM ALL THE SAME???? If you like the 3 launchers that much, TRAIN CALDARI FRIGATE 5 AND QUIT CRYING. Nuff said. Words cannot express my opinion about your comment. Do you truely believe that everyone should fly a Manticore? *sigh.. I think the comment was perfectly cromulent. I already fly a manticore and I'm training to fly a hound so I can do better DPS in gangs. Don't cry for removing diversity just because you can't handle an extra week of training. A prevailing oppinion among a certain group of people is that diversity and balance can be combined, and that balance consists of several different factors which, when weighed against each other, creates a balance between two inherently vastly different objects. These people are opposed by those who believe that balance is axact equality, hence diversity cannot exist at the same time. There's also a few people who think that making ship classes for all races that, by their very description, favours one of the races before the others is wrong. I am one of those. I dread how they'll make Carriers - if not all are equal it is a game design failure, but unless the Gallentean one isn't supreme it will be a storyline failure (storyline failures are very bad, as they remove the 'soul' or 'spirit' of a setting). There are still vast distinctions that can be made to the Stealth Bombers without strayig from the class - more than now the devs should make the racial differences more pronounced. Caldari do have better bomber-power, but the Minmatar should be swift and agile, the Amarr one should be able to take punishment like no other and the Gallentean one... well... theirs is the damage game in every other area. -- Neat sig, huh? Can you figure out what it says?
xOm3gAx	Posted - 2005.10.10 19:25:00 - [356] Edited by: xOm3gAx on 10/10/2005 19:29:04 Originally by: Ante Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them a boost to agility They're heavy, they're fat, they're slow, so it isn't as though they're going to be very agile. 2 words that answer that Stealth Bomber Which if you look to rl - the american stealth bomber is capable of speeds greater then mach 3 but loses its stealth abilities past mach 1. So if this was to be applied here then a base speed increase and agility boost would be appropriate while using ab/mwd wouldnt be feesable as it wouldnt be cloaked ;) Edit: thought id make a little side note the F-117 is not the only "stealth air craft" there are 2 other varients of this particular craft i know of. And not all spec's were ever released about them. ----------------- Decloaks and starts blasting your sig Applesauce Biotch Ok who nerf batted my sig >again<? ^^Bows^^ ^^ALL HAIL THE UBERNESS OF Thee^^ Succumb to your nightmares Darkness
Forlani	Posted - 2005.10.10 21:08:00 - [357] Ive only just started looking at getting a stealth bomber, but from what i can see the manticore is the way to go. Even though ive basicly only trained in gallante ships the gallante stealth bomber isnt up to the manticore, maybe if the gallante one could use torps it would make it an interesting option. But i dont want a manticore clone, i want a good trade off in ships so that their all good at on thing, but that is different to the others. The other three stealth bombers are basicly the same. Someone above said how about drones for the gallante stealth bomber. Well how about having stealth drones, so you can deploy them and their cloaked aswell but when they go to attack the come out of cloak. Id be happy with a Gallante stealth bomber that could do that, or a mimitar one that can use artillery and cloaks inbtween vollies it would have a larger sig radius to give people a chance to lock it before it got into cloak. You know give the ships some variety so your faced with a tough choice that to get attribute a you must forgo attribute b, and so on. racial diversity in the ships should be embraced, as much of a headache for ballencing it will be its why i want to play this game, becuase everything is a trade off, and you have to make the choice that fits best for you.
Justin Cody	Posted - 2005.10.11 00:25:00 - [358] Originally by: xOm3gAx Edited by: xOm3gAx on 10/10/2005 19:47:25 Edited by: xOm3gAx on 10/10/2005 19:42:21 Originally by: Ante Originally by: KingsGambit - Giving them a boost to agility They're heavy, they're fat, they're slow, so it isn't as though they're going to be very agile. 2 words that answer that Stealth Bomber Which if you look to rl - the american stealth bomber is capable of speeds greater then mach 1 but loses its stealth abilities past mach 1. So if this was to be applied here then a base speed increase and agility boost would be appropriate while using ab/mwd wouldnt be feesable as it wouldnt be cloaked ;) Edit: thought id make a little side note the F-117 is not the only "stealth aircraft" there are 2 other varients of this particular craft i know of one being the B2 Spirit. With a notable price dif between the f-117 and the b2 the f-117 being 45mil and the b2 being ~2.2 billion (each) And not all spec's were ever released about them. Second Edit: Fixed a typo in the speed (hit 3 instead of 1), Also a small side note to compliment this the current max speed of stealth bombers is classified. All released facts point to it being able to excede mach 1 but they never tell you that it goes faster then subsonic speeds. ok its clear that very few people referncing US Military Aircraft have ever gone past the cover of Popular Science here... but its p[retty irrelevent to the topic I'll make a post about all of this in Out of Pod Experiences. "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
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.11 00:54:00 - [359] Originally by: Forlani Ive only just started looking at getting a stealth bomber, but from what i can see the manticore is the way to go. 30 mil vs 10 mil for the others. Yea. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Bunny Wunny	Posted - 2005.10.11 11:13:00 - [360] please please please, stop letting "cloud" entitys effect the cloaking devices! I just lost a hound when running a lvl 3 mission (no need to kill the billion NPCs, just get though the gates and get loot) get to last area, go though gate, oh look, I'm decloaked and can't recloak because a)theres a cloud and b) the NPC BS can instalock my ass. bye bye hound

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

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.