Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mallakk
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 15:39:00 -
[1]
On tranquility : 19.65% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs
On singularity : 19.72% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs
The purifier got +5 cpu The nemesis got +3 pwg The hound +5 cpu The manticore +5 pwg
Its not a lot, but it prove someone had an eye on them. Please hold on and add a really usefull bonus to those ships, they deserve it...
we are behind you ! keep up the good work :) *cheer*
|
Paigan
Amarr Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 15:50:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Paigan on 08/11/2006 15:51:10 Those changes are only in quantity, not quality.
They are still hardly usefull due to no cov ops cloaking. Still useless in the role their name suggests ("Bomber"...).
The changes only allow finally fitting them properly for their useless role. Although, it's an improvement, no objection.
Still, my suggestion: - Give them Torps instead of CMs (without the explosion bonus) - give them a damage multiplier role bonus and a rof multiplier penalty (high alpha, normal dps) - maybe give them a cov ops cloak
Then they're bombers. Then they're worth being risked instead of just flying something else -- This game is still in beta stage |
Mallakk
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:00:00 -
[3]
Its clearly not enough to make them usable, but at least, it prove there is some interest from the dev team about them, as they tweaked them a bit. It time to encourage them to continue
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:26:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Paigan
Still, my suggestion: - Give them Torps instead of CMs (without the explosion bonus) - give them a damage multiplier role bonus and a rof multiplier penalty (high alpha, normal dps) - maybe give them a cov ops cloak
Covert ops cloaks would be nice, but they'd probably be overpowered and popular (um, like Crows or Ravens ;-)).
I don't like the Torps idea though, I'd prefer a +100% (or more) velocity bonus for cruise missiles and something like +50% RoF.
|
Paigan
Amarr Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: Paigan
Still, my suggestion: - Give them Torps instead of CMs (without the explosion bonus) - give them a damage multiplier role bonus and a rof multiplier penalty (high alpha, normal dps) - maybe give them a cov ops cloak
Covert ops cloaks would be nice, but they'd probably be overpowered and popular (um, like Crows or Ravens ;-)).
I don't like the Torps idea though, I'd prefer a +100% (or more) velocity bonus for cruise missiles and something like +50% RoF.
Nothing against that idea of CM-anti-frig Tech2 Frigs. But "Bombers" are supposed to be something small that is good against something big. AND: such a shipclass could really have its niche in eve without being overpowered or not needed.
Ergo: Frigs with torps.
Those "What-destroyers-should-have-been" T2 Frigs would be a nice role for a variation (like with interceptors).
Something like... "Missile Sniper" class or just "Hunter" class or whatever. -- This game is still in beta stage |
Grinkur
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 16:41:00 -
[6]
Hope it is not true. You still need a MAPC to fit 150mm on the Nemesis. It still needs a little more grid. And please, remove the split bonuses. If it is a specialized ship it should only have bonuses for the primary weapons system.
A frigate with BS sized missile launchers and bonus to frigate hybrid weapons doesn't make sense.
I think stealth bombers should be changed to stealth fighters. A ship that can use cloak but sill uses the MAIN RACIAL WEAPON SYSTEM.
Would need bonus to improve damage, range and alpha strike.
Caldari: Stealth bomber Minnie: Stealth Artillery ship Gallente: Stealth railgun/blaster ship Amarr: Stealth Beam laser ship
|
Zixxa
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 17:20:00 -
[7]
Stealth bombers were almost useless before Kali. Now, with 50% boost of HP, stealth bombers do not exist as warship
|
Paigan
Amarr Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 17:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zixxa Stealth bombers were almost useless before Kali. Now, with 50% boost of HP, stealth bombers do not exist as warship
^^ good point, actually. Then they've been (relatively) nerfed, even though. -- This game is still in beta stage |
Mallakk
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 18:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Grinkur Hope it is not true.
Of course its true What would be the point of communicating changes on a board and give false one ?
|
Quilan Ziller
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 22:16:00 -
[10]
Good thing some dev is looking into SBs... Unfortunately, they are even more useless in Kali than they are now in RMR. The reasons for it have been discussed and re-discussed in multiple threads.
These (very expensive!) ships stand no chance even against T1 cruisers. They are only good against T1 frigs, haulers, and shuttles... Using an expensive T2 frig for this purpose is an overkill, if the same task can be accompllished with a 200K T1 frig (or two). Alpha strike of 2-3 cruise missiles will not come even close to killing a cruiser. Since SBs totally lack any tank, their DPS is pathetic, and they cannot fit a cov ops cloak, they don't stand any chance in a prolonged battle. And with a 50% HP increase, a SB won't even take out most shields. Very few people fly SBs as of now. Please, please, make them a viable ship type with Kali! Allow them to fit torps, or give them a damage bonus to Cruise Missiles!
|
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation The Corporation Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 22:22:00 -
[11]
Remove the wording "Stealth Bomber" and introduce "Black Ops" like they were intended to be called initially.
Then make RACIALLY CONCEPTUAL ships for **** sake. Amarr do not do missiles, and Gallente even less. Just ask around, and I'm sure the community has enough wacko ideas to make a bucket load of new T2 ships, interesting, and racially conceptual. I know I do at times.
Racially conceptual means: diverse ships that share a common concept only superficially, but at the core adhere more to their race than to the ship concept. for instance, a fast Amarr ship isn't racially conceptual while a Minmatar would be. A long range Gallente ship isn't conceptual, but a Gallente ship with severe penalties at range would be. - Am I in the coolest alliance or what? |
Kharakan
Amarr GREY COUNCIL
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 23:12:00 -
[12]
What would a 'racially conceptual' amarr SB become then? A laser pointer?
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain (to Dark Shikari) HAHAHA I KNOW YOUR ACCOUUNT NAME TIME TO DIE
this signature space is claimed in the name of eris, haha I got to him first. neeneer
|
Quilan Ziller
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 23:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kharakan What would a 'racially conceptual' amarr SB become then? A laser pointer?
Mmm... How about a frig that can fit 2 or 3 Tachyon Beam Laser IIs, with appropriate damage and cap use bonuses, so that it can deal 1000-2000 HP damage with them in 5-10 sec before its cap is totally drained? Kind of like a laser pointer, but with a twist Seriously - it is not such a bad idea!
|
Quilan Ziller
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 23:36:00 -
[14]
Or a Gallente SB with small blaster and drone bonuses, and space for 3 heavy drones? Essentially, a Vexor with no tank, 3 small turret hardpoints, and a cloaking bonus. I would so fly this ship :) And it won't really be overpowered.
|
Mallakk
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 19:43:00 -
[15]
Had some hope on the last build... but bombers are desesperately the sames... useless
|
Kunming
Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 20:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ithildin Remove the wording "Stealth Bomber" and introduce "Black Ops" like they were intended to be called initially.
Then make RACIALLY CONCEPTUAL ships for **** sake. Amarr do not do missiles, and Gallente even less. Just ask around, and I'm sure the community has enough wacko ideas to make a bucket load of new T2 ships, interesting, and racially conceptual. I know I do at times.
Racially conceptual means: diverse ships that share a common concept only superficially, but at the core adhere more to their race than to the ship concept. for instance, a fast Amarr ship isn't racially conceptual while a Minmatar would be. A long range Gallente ship isn't conceptual, but a Gallente ship with severe penalties at range would be.
Yeah I was very dissapointed when they all turned out missile boats
Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 23:49:00 -
[17]
Stealth bombers are neither stealth nor bombers in EVE.
Let them fit 3-4 Torpedo launchers, and cov-ops cloaks, and then you'll have a real stealth bomber.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Ruze
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.13 00:59:00 -
[18]
Stealth Bombers need one simple change to become useful, in my opinion.
- Give it the ability to MAINTAIN a lock while cloaked. Not cloak while locked, but maintain the lock for a short length of time after cloaking, in order to allow the missiles to actually hit.
A SB's defense is stealth, NOT tank. Being able to fire and forget is essential for their survival.
Genesis Project |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |