| 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) |
Kyoko Sakoda
   |
Posted - 2005.09.26 00:36:00 -
[181]
 Originally by: Vegeir
Otherwise what is the cloaking skill gonna do for us after the changes?
Bombers get their bonuses from the racial frigate skills and from the Covert Ops skill. The Cloaking skill never did too much for bombers in the first place because 10-20 seconds of vulnerability is all an interceptor or anti-frigate ship needs to take one out.
|
bundy bear
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 01:00:00 -
[182]
Stealth bombers should have paperthin defences, i see the stealthbomber as a more offensice ship. It needs to be able to lock straight after decloaking for surprise attacks making a stealthbomber an actual stealth bomber. Turrets and extra high slots are completely useless. The long distance warping needs to be fixed and the ship could have better agility and speed. The gallente minmatar and amarr turret bonuses need to be changed to missile DMG to bring them CLOSER to the manticore. Fitting seems to be a lare problem with these ships because of their pre missile change powergird
|
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 01:13:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 25/09/2005 23:13:20
Ahem, plated Claw too :P
Yes, I should have included the Claw. I've only ever lost two bombers, one of them to your &!@*# Claw 
But a Claw on its own isn't real threat. Whack it with a tracking disruptor (or two) and the two launchers alone don't have enough firepower to take out a bomber before it gets off a second salvo, particularly if the bomber is using a plate and good named launchers.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 01:24:00 -
[184]
I have a tracking of .5 with my Claw's guns. At close range, a tracking disruptor's NOT gonna stop me. And I only carry 1 launcher.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 03:04:00 -
[185]
The point of the tracking disruptors in this instance is to reduce the optimal range, not tracking speed. A pair of good disruptors will cut the target's optimal to 40% of normal. They're not supposed to be an 'I Win' button, just some extra protection.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 03:09:00 -
[186]
"The point of the tracking disruptors in this instance is to reduce the optimal range, not tracking speed. A pair of good disruptors will cut the target's optimal to 40% of normal."
Autocannon optimal is tiny to begin with, halving it doesn't do much if the ship is already in that range -.^
|
Naal Morno
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 03:27:00 -
[187]
I am not sure if anybody mentiond this yet, but this introduces very serious inbalancing factor to these ships.
Namely they will be able to sneak to a ship and close to insta lock and warp scramble the victim. Even a ship designed to do exactly this (Covert Ops) can't lock anybody in this fashion.
I am not sure how to solve this problem, maybe the solution is to keep targetting delay in same amount as for covert ships and make it dependant on bomber skill....
Your Heavy Neutron Blaster II perfectly strikes Serpentis Chief Sentinel, wrecking for 660.4 damage.
|
Foulis
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 03:42:00 -
[188]
Well, I don't know if you guys have adressed this portion yet, you all posted aloooooot of stuff ^_^;. I don't think that the other races should get an additional launcher hardpoint for one reason. PRICE. Look at the prices of stealth bombers in lonetrek, the manticore is 30 mill, all other bombers are 10 mill. The manticore may have 50% more firepower but it's 300% more expensive! Think about it.
|
Herko Kerghans
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 04:46:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Herko Kerghans on 26/09/2005 04:49:04
Originally by: CCP Hammer
We want to remove the targetting timer delay and module activation delay when decloaking in a stealth bomber next patch.
OMGOMGOMG YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Anyone have any other little changes we might want to do to them that isn't going to require massive rebalancing or programming efforts?
Ok:
-I believe the CovOp should be the "Ultimate Ship With a Cloaking Module". In that line, could CovOps gain the same feature? And perhaps gain a speed bonus too?
(and no, Bombers should not be able to fit the Covert Ops module)
-Manticore needs a bit of love when warping; the 50ish AU range with good skills suckS. Until the joyous day that we see instas gone, warping = travel speed and manticores get left behind.
-Maybe allow changing ammo while cloaked? (for all ships?). Not a gamebreaker I think, and it adds a little bonus to be able to choose your missile type before engageing.
-Last but not least, YEEEHHAAA!!!
-
By my third bottle and feeling already slightly vertically challenged... |
Minuz1
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 05:48:00 -
[190]
I'm no genius on the cov ops ships, but after using the standard modules on various crafts I think there should be a tad bit more possible to do with the cov ops.
How about making the stealth bombers able to cloak while being targetted?
Can't do that with the normal ones atleast. This would allow the bombers to blink while attacking.. making it pretty darn hard to get a shot at them. But while cloaked they'd slow down(like real stealth bombers can't go supersonic while flying stealthly).
Btw please hurry up with the decision...I have an offer from a agent with a SB BPO that needs a yay or nay.
-Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you are still a retard |
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 06:04:00 -
[191]
Originally by: j0sephine
Autocannon optimal is tiny to begin with, halving it doesn't do much if the ship is already in that range -.^
Agreed, but even if it shaves 1000m off the effective range that's still a help.
We're hi-jacking this thread so I'm going to stop here. Don't know why I'm defending this setup anyway, I only mentioned it because I needed to write something and didn't fancy giving away the setup I actually use in combat 
|
Altaireus
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 06:26:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Foulis
Well, I don't know if you guys have adressed this portion yet, you all posted aloooooot of stuff ^_^;. I don't think that the other races should get an additional launcher hardpoint for one reason. PRICE. Look at the prices of stealth bombers in lonetrek, the manticore is 30 mill, all other bombers are 10 mill. The manticore may have 50% more firepower but it's 300% more expensive! Think about it.
i thought about it, and you didnt consider that the higher price is caused by higher demand beacuse of that extra launcher slot? 
|
Brute Helmet
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 09:15:00 -
[193]
Originally by: bundy bear
Stealth bombers should have paperthin defences, i see the stealthbomber as a more offensice ship. It needs to be able to lock straight after decloaking for surprise attacks making a stealthbomber an actual stealth bomber. Turrets and extra high slots are completely useless. The long distance warping needs to be fixed and the ship could have better agility and speed. The gallente minmatar and amarr turret bonuses need to be changed to missile DMG to bring them CLOSER to the manticore. Fitting seems to be a lare problem with these ships because of their pre missile change powergird
They already have paperthin defences and no real ability to tank. The turrets are a token defence, useful possibly when the **** hits the fan or if you manage to jam your opponent at close range.
The Hound, Manticore, Purifier and Nemesis have a 5% per level of covert ops skill bonus to cruise missile damage.
There are two things that can be done to make the stealth bombers a bit more balanced:
1. Add a third launcher to the non-caldari ones, or adjust the damage bonuses to compensate for the third launcher.
2. Boost capacitor by 10-15% and reduce mass by 20%
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 10:01:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Brute Helmet
1. Add a third launcher to the non-caldari ones, or adjust the damage bonuses to compensate for the third launcher.
Why do people insist on getting rid of differences between ships? The Manticore is fine. Not all ships are born equal, case in point Zealot compared to Deimos. Should the Zealot be given a 5th turret? No. 4 turrets makes the Zealot unique and a lot of people like it fine the way it is.
Originally by: Brute Helmet
2. Boost capacitor by 10-15% and reduce mass by 20%
Why? They're big and slow because they're carrying battleship weapons and should remain slower because of it.
For those that still don't get it: the Manticore is hell to fit with 3 launchers. It's slower, has less health, is bigger, has a smaller cargobay than any other bomber (despite the Kestrel having the largest cargobay for any frig), has the least grid output (makes fitting launchers just that much more frustrating) and warps the shortest distance.
Here's an equation for those that only understand maths. Purifier = 1.5x Manticore grid. Manticore = 1.5x Purifier high slots.
If you're calling for an extra high slot for all other stealth bombers, then give the Manticore 15 extra grid to put it in line with the Purifier and give it an extra low slot so that it can fit 3x damage mods just like the Purifier. I guarantee you the Manticore would benefit more from this change than the Purifier.
|
Mangus Thermopyle
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 11:32:00 -
[195]
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.
|
Brute Helmet
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 11:45:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Ante
Edited by: Ante on 26/09/2005 10:18:16
Edited by: Ante on 26/09/2005 10:15:12
Originally by: Brute Helmet
1. Add a third launcher to the non-caldari ones, or adjust the damage bonuses to compensate for the third launcher.
Why do people insist on getting rid of differences between ships? The Manticore is fine. Not all ships are born equal, case in point Zealot compared to Deimos. Should the Zealot be given a 5th turret? No. 4 turrets makes the Zealot unique and a lot of people like it fine the way it is.
Originally by: Brute Helmet
2. Boost capacitor by 10-15% and reduce mass by 20%
Why? They're big and slow because they're carrying battleship weapons and should remain slower because of it.
For those that still don't get it: the Manticore is hell to fit with 3 launchers. It's slower, has less health, is heavier, has a smaller cargobay than any other bomber (despite the Kestrel having the largest cargobay for any frig), has the least grid output (makes fitting launchers just that much more frustrating) and warps the shortest distance.
Here's an equation for those that only understand maths. Purifier = 1.5x Manticore grid. Manticore = 1.5x Purifier high slots.
If you're calling for an extra high slot for all other stealth bombers, then give the Manticore 15 extra grid to put it in line with the Purifier and give it an extra low slot so that it can fit 3x damage mods just like the Purifier. I guarantee you the Manticore would benefit more from this change than the Purifier.
EDIT: Manticore also has 75% the scanning res of the hound. It targets the slowest too.
EDIT 2: Manticore also has largest sid radius.
Manticore also has 150% the firepower of all other stealthbombers, dont forget that The difference between 3 cruise per salvo and 2 cruise per salvo is quite high, isnt it ?
The mass reduction is needed since the Hound and Purifier both handle more like heavy cruisers than frigates. I havent flown the Manticore or Nemesis so I cant speak as to how those handle.
|
captian jackharkness
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 12:21:00 -
[197]
From reading all this thread i think ive got the gist of what people want.
Covert ops ships to be faster, HAC resistance, all the same no matter what race, to lock faster, lower sig radius, more offensive capabilites to all types of ship.
Sounds to me like people arent thinking balancing just an I WIN ship.
|
IVillDrinkYourBlood
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 12:35:00 -
[198]
Edited by: IVillDrinkYourBlood on 26/09/2005 12:38:03
I think stealth bombers should have cruise missiles completely removed. 2 of them don't have enough power to kill battleships and they dont do enough damage to frigates. They will be utterly pointless, whatever you do.
What i think is this:
Covert Ops Ships should be halfway between and inty and a t1 frigate, but should have cloaking. They should be fast, around 600m/s (no-one wants to wait ages for covert ops to get in position for warp in). They should also have plenty of cpu for scan probe launchers.
Stealth bombers should be halfway between an af and t1 frigate. They should have standard resistances, and a very low decloaked speed (but high cloaked speed), but should have high damgage bonuses, and no decloak penalties. They should be used for sneaking up on mining ops and letting loose on them, being able to tank drones, but not much else.
They should have low cpu, knowwhere near enough to fit a scan probe launcher and cloak.
|
M0535
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 12:38:00 -
[199]
Dunno if anyone has said this - as I'm too lazy to read the whole thread - but how about allowing the cov ops t2 cloak, so they can warp cloaked.
|
Ante
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 12:50:00 -
[200]
Edited by: Ante on 26/09/2005 12:51:26
Originally by: Brute Helmet
Manticore also has 150% the firepower of all other stealthbombers, dont forget that The difference between 3 cruise per salvo and 2 cruise per salvo is quite high, isnt it ?
The mass reduction is needed since the Hound and Purifier both handle more like heavy cruisers than frigates. I havent flown the Manticore or Nemesis so I cant speak as to how those handle.
Did you even read what I typed? You still seem to be hooked onto the idea that firepower > all.
They are supposed to handle poorly. They're bombers. They're heavy. They're big. They carry bloody huge missiles and you expect it to handle like a normal frigate.
Go try and fit a Manticore with three cruise missile launchers + whatever you fit on your Hound or Purifier then come back and tell us all that the extra launcher makes it this magical ship that wtfpwns all.
EDIT: Slight change.
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 13:52:00 -
[201]
Originally by: captian jackharkness
From reading all this thread i think ive got the gist of what people want.
Covert ops ships to be faster, HAC resistance, all the same no matter what race, to lock faster, lower sig radius, more offensive capabilites to all types of ship.
Sounds to me like people arent thinking balancing just an I WIN ship.
Only the dumb ones. CCP needs to do what they have said they will do, while addressing the fact that that the grid changes on launchers have made it necessary to rethink the grid on these ships. Also the capacitor on these ships is super low, they warp slow for a ship of their size, and have paper tissue everything - less than a covert ops ship. I can understand the last perhaps if the cloak proves to be an effective combat tool but the other 2 don't make much sense.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 14:36:00 -
[202]
My experience with the Manticore (I can fly them all, but cruise kessy for the memories!)
Fittings - fine.
No need to tweak CPU or grid.
Fitted:
3x malkuth cruise.
1x Dread guristas cloak
1x sensor booster (f90)
1x passive targeter
2x damps (indirect)
1x BCU
1x Overdrive
This is my basic loadout, and all fits fine with my skills.
What got nerfed that I miss?
Missiles still hitting your target when you cloak.
What I would like:
Reduced targeting and re-cloaking delays.
Stealth coating. Working like a 'built in' 25% sensor dampner. Any ship which tries to lock gets a 25% penalty to sensor resolution and targeting range.
What I would not like:
The abilty to warp cloaked (well, I would like it, but it isn't good for balance imho)
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Vincent Codiaque
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:01:00 -
[203]
I like every sugestion, as long as the targetting delay will be removed. I dont think that these ships are overpowered with this change. A lot of ships will survive the first volley and then the SB is in trouble and frigs are often fast enough to escape before the first volley hits. In my opinion a Grid/CPU boost is not neccesary. This is not the first ship wich need named modules to fit the largest weapons. A small Cap boost would be welcome.
By the way, could we get a hind on the timeframe for the next patch (Pls a little more precise than "soon")
Greetings Vincent Codiaque
Advertisement : If someone would like to buy a Manticore, pls contact me 
|
Wootang
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:26:00 -
[204]
their name is stealth bomber and they are covert ops ships(if they wont be able to fit covert ops cloak plz ccp make a own category for them on market because its quite confusing!!!)
 ok i got an idea:
on eve-i.com ive seen "stealth devices" wich reduce your sig radius (opposite of target painters). what would be about the idea of giving those items a chance ingame and give the "stealth" bombers the ability to use those ones instead of cloaking devices
there could be different ones for all ship types and a special one for the stealth ships wich some special abilitys just like the covert ops cloaking
good thing about this one is that you can still see them on your overview so everyone is warned that they are here but it makes them hard to lock/kill...
think about it
|
Barak Gideon
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:47:00 -
[205]
I'm quite pleased about the Manticore having an extra slot, not cos i'm Caldari, but cos' it seems CCP is designing ships which are more diverse.
|
Mujun Kross
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 15:55:00 -
[206]
all of these changes sound cool and all but they dont mean jack if the msls dont hit the target after the sb has cloaked.
Cruise msls need to be changed back to the way they were were they would still hit the target after the SB was cloaked. currently they do not so being able to uncloak, lock and shoot as fast as you can means nothing if you have to wait for the msl to hit the target first. and by that time you have been locked so you cant recloak (another advantage that is being offered is rapid recloak) anyways so its time to warp out.
.
.
.
"Come now, my child, if we were planning to harm you, do you think we'd be lurking here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?"
-Kenneth Patchen "But Even So" |
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 16:05:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Tuxford
OMG why can't I ever deliver the good news 
lol, you got the short straw
|
Thanos Firebringer
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 17:12:00 -
[208]
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.
|
Rob Boberton
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:01:00 -
[209]
I think it's silly to give all of the ships 3 slots. If you want 3 cruise slots train caldari frig now and you'll be done before next patch most likely. Complaining that everyone will just fly manticore isn't a really valid point either since everyone flying a different looking, differently named manticore is no more "diverse" than everyone flying an actual caldari stealth bomber. Let's leave the other 3 bombers as cheap alternatives till someone figures out how to exploit their individual advantages and manticore specialists can whine about how the hound, nemesis, or purifier needs nerfing to be brought back in line and we'll laugh at them. |
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2005.09.26 18:04:00 -
[210]
NERF SHAM!!1111!!
i mean,..
Add...when cloaked
Max target's = 1
targeting range x0.25 or so
this would let you target and cargo/ship scan 1 target and even declock and show em how imba your nafty lil shiup is now
|
| |
|
| 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 |