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)
FalloutBoy	Posted - 2005.09.28 03:12:00 - [241] This will allow decloak and scram in instant. I like these changes even more now need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat
Vaevectia	Posted - 2005.09.28 05:25:00 - [242] 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. How DARE YOU tell them to do exactly what all the Thorax FOTM users have been saying!??!?!/1/1/1 YOU SHOULD BE SHOTWTF!
Stuu	Posted - 2005.09.28 12:09:00 - [243] Well my thinking is that the Nemesis is totaly screwed I can fit 1 cloak and 1 cruise launcher and then the rest I struggle! So dont make them all the same but at least make them all equaly dealdly in there own race attributes! E.G. Minmater - speed, Gallente - Drones ,etc Level 5 misspelling skill reached
davidfire	Posted - 2005.09.28 13:21:00 - [244] is very good havent any delay to target maybe is good ide to balance make a special scanner who can detect space altertions you cant target a cloacked ship but you can know if it is near.... i like instant target isntant killing ok i cant put a smilies imagine a devil...
Sturm Kintaro	Posted - 2005.09.28 14:20:00 - [245] Originally by: Wootang 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 i like the idea of a seperate item for those ships. stealth device would be fitting name for them. the only problem with those will be that they get heavily resistances against missiles because of the signature radius reduction. maybe it is technically possible just to give them a higher time to get locked. otherwise id say that they should get their own cloaking device.
fairimear	Posted - 2005.09.28 16:35:00 - [246] how about removing it on all cloaks, lets add some spice to life
Harisdrop	Posted - 2005.09.28 16:45:00 - [247] I fly a Nemesis as my only ship today. This ship should not ever ever ever ever become a 1v1 PVP ship. If you remove the cloak lock you should increase the range you uncloak to 20km. You should be launching cruise missles from 100km anyway. If they come after you better warp away. Cloaking and hiding should not be the option for close combat. Make the stealth only for long range. Give sensor dampener effect or tracking disruptor a bonus. -------------------------- Does it matter why, its when is more crucial!
Sabahl	Posted - 2005.09.28 17:00:00 - [248] Originally by: CCP Hammer Does anyone have anything to add? Anyone see a glaring reason why we shouldn't? Anyone have any other little changes we might want to do to them that isn't going to require massive rebalancing or programming efforts? I do. There was a bug in the original implementation of the cloaking code that meant that you could quickly toggle the cloaks on and off and confuse everything. Your graphics system would display as if you were cloaked, but the game would think you were not. The result was you were sitting in your covert ops thinking you couldn't be detcted and a second later you were gank-meat. Even if you remove the timer delay on the other modules, you should keep the delay on the cloaks themselves to prevent this from occuring. Unless you want to go on a code dive to find out what the cause of the graphics bug was in the first place.
Weirda	Posted - 2005.09.28 17:44:00 - [249] Originally by: Naal Morno Again, people. Removing just targetting delay is very unbalancing to other ships. This will allow decloak and scram in instant. This is very very inbalancing. I am all for reducing it to covert ops levels. If you want this so bad to be removed, please disable abilitt of mounting EW on these or remove med slots.... iwho these ship are just fragile enough to not make this a problem. also, keep in mind that with the scan resolution penalty of the cloak, the ship locks like a cruiser (locking a frig) - which is by no mean instant. even with one sensor booster, you still have to activate it and you still don't get a very quick lock. dunno if you fly these ship currently, but if you do - you should know what weirda mean. -- Thread Killer (attempting to train verbosity from 4 back down to 1) <END TRANSMISSION>
Ante	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:02:00 - [250] FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps.
Weirda	Posted - 2005.09.28 19:15:00 - [251] Originally by: Ante FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps. HUSH! -- Thread Killer (attempting to train verbosity from 4 back down to 1) <END TRANSMISSION>
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:33:00 - [252] Originally by: Ante FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps. And your seriously suggesting getting a Stealth Bomber close enough to use those guns?
Veskrashen	Posted - 2005.09.28 20:59:00 - [253] Originally by: Parallax Error Originally by: Ante FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps. And your seriously suggesting getting a Stealth Bomber close enough to use those guns? Ayup. Use a web to snag an inty, for example, and dump a 900pt cruise volley on him; follow it up with 200mm AC loving and it's toast. They're no more fragile than an inty; they just use stealth for defense instead of speed. There's no need to orbit when you can front load so much damage and cause major panic in your opponent. And yeah, if you work it right you can even fit a 200mm or so plate; that should keep you alive long enough to pop a second volley if the 200mms don't eat it first.
Mowz	Posted - 2005.09.28 21:02:00 - [254] Originally by: Parallax Error Originally by: Ante FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps. And your seriously suggesting getting a Stealth Bomber close enough to use those guns? Why not if you're gonna drop cloak, instalock and blaze away?
mexxa	Posted - 2005.09.28 21:12:00 - [255] Originally by: Mowz Originally by: Parallax Error Originally by: Ante FYI a Hound with 2x 200mm Autocannon IIs does ~20 dps more than a Manticore with 3x cruise launchers at maxed skills. That's ~25% extra dps. And your seriously suggesting getting a Stealth Bomber close enough to use those guns? Why not if you're gonna drop cloak, instalock and blaze away? Why not reduce the distance for gallente ships to be uncloaked and give them lasers instead of missiles. It half defeats the point of it being a bomber but It'd give people a better reason to use different bombers.
Razner Cerizo	Posted - 2005.09.28 21:31:00 - [256] Originally by: mexxa Why not reduce the distance for gallente ships to be uncloaked and give them lasers instead of missiles. It half defeats the point of it being a bomber but It'd give people a better reason to use different bombers. o________O??? So gallente would have to train LASERS to use on their "stealth bomber"? wtf D;
mexxa	Posted - 2005.09.28 21:33:00 - [257] Well some-one else said they use lasers on thiers and hit for more, my post was just another idea for the pool. -------------------- So where's Adam?
Rigsta	Posted - 2005.09.28 22:03:00 - [258] Edited by: Rigsta on 28/09/2005 22:03:46 Originally by: CCP Hammer They came prenerfed since we didn't want them to be too ganktastic but after watching things for a while we think the timers can be removed. Personally I think that was exactly the right approach to take. "My ship was bad but is now good" is better than "my ship pwnt all but now it's balanced :(" For the implementation, I'd say keep the delay there for level 0/1 skills, but give the stealth bombers better skill bonuses to reduce (or eliminate completely) the delay time. That way you don't end up with a minimum-skill destructomobile, and training for them exclusively will really pay off. Almost unrelated: Some means of recloaking while someone is target locking you (ie. not yet locked) would really make the difference. Perhaps a skill or module (not ECM :P) to give a % chance to be able to recloak. And conversely, a skill/module to reduce a covert ops ship's chance to recloak while your sensors are bombarding it. Maybe give stronger sensors a better chance of preventing recloak. Or something. Just a basic idea! Would require alot of balancing. ----------------------------------------------- My Ideas: Drones wish list <-- 2 years old :O
Nytemaster	Posted - 2005.09.29 01:33:00 - [259] Edited by: Nytemaster on 29/09/2005 01:38:41 Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Stan D'marco Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: CCP Hammer Does anyone have anything to add? Anyone see a glaring reason why we shouldn't? Becuase it just encourages MORE ganking? Given the explosion radius bonus, it's an insta-win button against T1 frigs. It's a bad idea. A bomber should be good against BIG ships, not small ones as this change makes them. Do they not let you use afterburners or mwd at DIE? =) (Old corp buddy to old corp buddy joke) When you get up to speed the cruise still won't hurt you. And this leads us into the useless turret slots. Frig + Bomber + close range = very dead bomber. Even by the time you locked, webbed, fired and are waiting for the next volley you are dead. You're right, except. Except, the things are stealthed, and you need several km/s to do any good. Plus, if they basially remove the usefulness of plates (see: mass), then almost any interceptor is a ONE VOLLEY kill. And they're not helpless outside missiles, you realise... (except the Manticore) I'm mostly agreeing with Elve Sorrow on roles here. Not necessarily full-up torpedos, but say...Lances, a sort of mini-torpedo. Look, if you change this, I will JUMP in one and start killing. But I think it'll be overpowered. We need a good anti frig/ceptor ship that the destroyer was intended to be and hasn't. Maybe the T2 destroyers will be? If not, I like the idea of some cloaked ships suddently showing up and chasing off the interceptors who were tackling. I remember in the past that others were saying interceptors were loved by CCP and it was the frig that was getting too much love. This patch is a direct threat to ceptors the most if you ask me and is very needed. Just my opinion of course. EDIT: As much as I love the idea, I think removing the entire sensor recalibration time is a mistake. 10% reduction on the penalty for every covert-ops cloak level would seem better and make them require cloaking V and covert-ops V to insta lock out of cloak. This seems more feesible an option. --- Nytemaster Mega-Deth
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.09.29 02:13:00 - [260] So a T1 destroyer can't handle some T2 intys? Shock, horror. Bombers should be just that - useful against LARGER ships, and vulnrable to interceptors. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Herko Kerghans	Posted - 2005.09.29 03:17:00 - [261] Originally by: Nytemaster Simulated sensor recalibration times for each using an improved cloaking device: Covert V - Cloak V - 0 second. Covert IV - Cloak V - 2 seconds. Covert IV - Cloak IV - 4 seconds. Covert III - Cloak IV - 6 seconds. So on and so forth... (Multiply by 1.5 for a prototype cloak.) two thumbs up Fully endorse the above product. And make it possible for Covert Ops ships, too (by a 0.5 factor?) - The Fox, the Rock, and the Buzzard
Frezik	Posted - 2005.09.29 05:23:00 - [262] Originally by: Wraeththu Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae Every other race has it's specialty, the caldari is missiles. Ok, if that's the case, then the hound should be able to fit 3 1200mm howies, and 3 megabeams on the amarr one, and 3 350mm railguns on the nemesis. Actually, that sounds like a really good idea. Eve's storyline demands that the Manticore get an extra launcher, but the gameplay demands that they all be roughly even. By having letting each race get its specialized BS-sized weapon on their bomber, you can reconcile the demands of the backstory and gameplay.
Ante	Posted - 2005.09.29 06:37:00 - [263] Originally by: CCP Hammer Does anyone have anything to add? Yes in fact I do have one more suggestion. In order to give a little bit more variety to the ships I would really like to see the Manticore lose a high slot for a mid slot, the Hound lose a low slow for a mid slot and the Nemesis lose a mid for a low. This, to me, seems to maintan the slot ratio for the races fairly well. Would it also be unfair to give the Manticore a tad more cpu (being Caldari and having more mids) while also giving the Nemesis a tad more grid (it has the least grid which is made worse by the lack of the second grid reduction bonus that the Manticore receives)?
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.09.29 07:59:00 - [264] Originally by: Frezik Originally by: Wraeththu Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae Every other race has it's specialty, the caldari is missiles. Ok, if that's the case, then the hound should be able to fit 3 1200mm howies, and 3 megabeams on the amarr one, and 3 350mm railguns on the nemesis. Actually, that sounds like a really good idea. Eve's storyline demands that the Manticore get an extra launcher, but the gameplay demands that they all be roughly even. By having letting each race get its specialized BS-sized weapon on their bomber, you can reconcile the demands of the backstory and gameplay. Actually, it sounds a bit... I dunno... strange. Bomber to me is short range against (more or less) stationary targets. So, I don't understand all this cruise missile thingy. Then again, unless bombers are made more or less equal, just imagine the outcry if the Gallentean Carrier isn't the biggest, best, and sleekest out there. P.S. just imagine a Nemisis with 3x 350mm II that has the tracking of 125mm Railguns with a 5% per level Gallentean tracking and damage bonus on top. P.P.S. And then imagine the model: 3 really big guns on a pink Fat Man... -- NikNac is making me a new sig. It's gonna be so sweet.
Brute Helmet	Posted - 2005.09.29 08:01:00 - [265] Ante, 2x200mm II AC wont fit on my Hound. I manage to squeeze in 2x150mm II, and its not exactly the same to use them as when youre in a rifter... And removing a lowslot for a midslot on the Hound, why ? I reiterate what Ive said before : 20% lower mass on the stealth bombers, 10-15% better cap and some rebalancing of the damagebonuses/launcher slots would be good.
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.09.29 10:30:00 - [266] Hmmm, I see new life for the ECM burst modules....
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.09.29 12:52:00 - [267] Originally by: Ranger 1 Hmmm, I see new life for the ECM burst modules.... I don't. They take too much cap for such a small effect.
Dryxonedes Sae	Posted - 2005.09.29 15:57:00 - [268] Edited by: Dryxonedes Sae on 29/09/2005 15:57:03 Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Originally by: Ranger 1 Hmmm, I see new life for the ECM burst modules.... I don't. They take too much cap for such a small effect. And generally if your locked (requiring use of the burst) at inside 5k range, in a bomber, your prolly cactus already anyway. Being that also you get decloaked at 1500m(i think?), inside that 5k range won't take long for a lot of pilots to uncloak you again anyway (bs's might throw the drones out, frigs would just drive at you... One of the main things i'd like to see turfed out is the racial damage bonus, i think most players accept that EM/Expl is the way to go damage type wise, so why punish the caldari/gallente races? Comparing say a mega to an apoc, the dmg types are irrelevant due to the 2 ships being designed for a different type of weapon, but bombers all use the same type, cruise missiles, pack that racial bonus up, send it home...
Darth Revanant	Posted - 2005.09.29 16:32:00 - [269] ECM burst doesn't work on bombers.
Lodhi	Posted - 2005.09.29 21:53:00 - [270] Edited by: Lodhi on 29/09/2005 22:02:18 Originally by: Merdekka Radaen Fitting Fitting is a pretty big issue for me. Even with advanced weapon upgrades lvl 5 you still can't get away without fitting a micro aux on the Manticore. Sure, you can fit the launchers without it, but that's about it. It's a tech II ship, it should at least be able to fit three tech I cruise launchers without almost doing itself a mischief in the process. (advanced/weapon upgrades 5, covert ops 4) 3 x Cruise Launcher I 1 x Improved Cloaking Device II = 34.08/37.5 MW, 195/306.25 TF. For a tech II ship specifically designed to use three cruise launchers, I have only 3MW for my remaining seven slots with advanced weapon upgrades 5? I don't want a load of extra grid, but it would be nice if the ship didn't require a micro aux by default. That's just silly. As you can see, the cpu situation isn't great either. Since the ship is so hopelessly weak, a little electronic warfare is your only real option for defence, but get ready to shop around for named t1 mods. The other bombers don't get as badly burned on fitting, but then who wants to fly a bomber with 2/3 the firepower of the manticore? There, I said it! Health Really, what is up with the health on these ships? They're barely stronger than their tech 1 counterparts and that resistance bonus... Who's idea was that? It really is so minor that it might as well not be there. I realise that their main defence is supposed to be their inherent stealth, but it seems kind of cruel to make them so weak. I'm not suggesting they get "assault" resistances, but it would be nice if they got say 50% extra health in all areas and the resistance bonuses that blockade runners get (50% to racial primary + 25% to racial secondary.) They'd still be very weak because of their low speed and agility, but at least they wouldn't explode spontaneously when something looks at them funny. For example (Manticore): 360 structure/307.5 armour/337.5 shield shield resistances: 60/55/60/0 (Resistances same as "Crane" Caldari blockade runner in other words.) Cover Op L5 is your friend. I can fit following on my manticore and i got a.weap upg L2 and covert op L5. 3xt-900 cruise, improved cloak II 2sensor booster, passive targeter, dampner pduII, nanofiber Dont need that pduII, but i use to get some extra cap and recharge

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.