EVE Search - Covert-Ops revamp.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Covert-Ops revamp.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arte	Posted - 2007.01.04 10:33:00 - [1] This is a short post to try to bring together some of the ideas floating around on the forums. I have not put too much detail in as it will make hideous reading and these are only proposals which forum warriors will put flesh on at their will or have been covered in the aforementioned posts. Cloaking devices Massive change proposed here. I didn't think about this one myself but would think it has merit. All cloaks allow warp while cloaked when fitted to covert ops class ships only. The speed while cloaked and signature resolution penalties remain extant on the prototype cloak and improved cloak, leaving a strong market for the covert ops cloak but reducing the cost and demand for them. Covert Ops class ships remain the only ones with a bonus to fit the covert ops cloak. Covert Ops frigates Leave essentially as they are but with two changes. Change one of the offensive bonuses to a speed whilst cloaked bonus that the stealth bombers have at the moment Change the other offensive bonus to a scan probe bonus (deviation, time to scan etc). This will leave this ships as pure recon ships with no offensive ability but with marked ability in scan probing and better fleet recon use due to the better speed whilst cloaked. Which bonuses become '[race] frigate' bonuses and which remain as covert ops skill bonuses is up for debate. Stealth Bombers Kinda gimped at the moment in that they can do a job, but other platforms can do the job more efficiently. So they have their uses of course but as a covert ops class ship they are poor and their role needs more development. Remove the speed whilst cloaked bonus. Give them the ability to warp while cloaked (see first section) Give them the ability to fit seige launchers as well as cruise launchers so that they can adopt a slightly more varied role Give them a better ability to warp across systems in less than 10 jumps. (more cap? better warp speed?) This would let them be an awesome offensive platform in the covert ops role which would have been over powering before the arrival of recon ships but is now viable in the current climate. Do not change their survivability as that is the thing that would stop them from being over powered. Force Recon Cruisers At the moment they are not used with the ability to light up cyno fields as throw-away alts are used instead and this therefore negates the bonus to the ship. Lower the time for cyno fields to be alight to 5 minutes for normal ships, this would give time for people to react to incursions in space whilst not being a crippling time sink for other pilots (read- "throwaway alts"). Give a "time reduction per level of recon skill" bonus that would bring the cyno time down to ~ 1 minute at max skills This would I believe, be an acceptable time without being over powering for offensive formations. The ship could still get taken down and would still have the vulnerability it currently has whilst activating a cyno field, but if it could survive that minute then it could play an active part in the impending battle. Another option offered was to do away with that static penalty all together for force recon... might be too over powering but it depends on whether people bother taking on cyno generator ships on appearance of the field now or not Either way, with this change they will play a more active part in their designed role instead of just a squad scout/EW platform. I don't know if some of the changes go to far but in essence they are a summary of some of the posts I have read, with my own thoughts and bias placed into them to bring them together as an over haul for the covert ops class of ships.
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.01.04 10:38:00 - [2] I think these ideas look pretty good, and I hope the devs atleast have a look at them. Especially the one about covert cloaks, 60-80M for a cloak that costs 2M to produce is only a testament of the T2 lottery failure, and this idea would help alleviate that. Regards /Doxs After 9 months, why is my face just a '!' ?
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2007.01.05 08:54:00 - [3] Stealth bombers: Seige launchers aren't the solution... half the firepower of a Raven isn't going to be a threat to battleships (or even many cruisers/BCs). Even if the signiature radius bonus applies to torps as well, it's still not enough alpha strike. Bombers need, in order of priority: 1) Fix this half-done "stealth" concept, a stealth bomber should be INVISIBLE until it decloaks to fire the lethal shot. That means no presence in local, and the ability to warp while cloaked. Otherwise a Raven with a cloak is pretty much superior in everything except scan resolution. Warping in uncloaked and sending the vulnerable prey running the moment you appear on overview is NOT stealth. Being painfully obvious in local with your bomber wolfpack is NOT stealth. Until these problems are fixed, the role is just broken. 2) Remove the frustrating warp problems. Bombers might be interesting in frigate groups with their insanely long-range firepower, but the horrible agility and laughable warp range makes them useless. Nobody wants to wait for the Manticore to finish crawling across every system. It's not a balancing factor, and all it does is frustrate potential pilots. 3) More damage, especially alpha strike (even at cost in damage over time). The Revelations HP changes have completely broken bombers. Even a T1 frigate can survive the alpha strike and warp away. It's hard to ambush vulnerable targets when 95% of the time all you see is your target warping away with a little damage. Whether this comes in the form of mini-doomsday devices (as one dev suggested), more missile hardpoints, a bigger damage bonus, a huge damage bonus and ROF penalty, it doesn't really matter. But they need the ability to actually kill their target fast enough to prevent it from escaping, and preferably fast enough to effectively use their full missile range (flight time = time to warp). 4) Fix the speed bonus/penalty stacking on prototype cloaks. Last I heard, this bug was still around, they don't stack properly and the result is a significant speed reduction even at Covert Ops V. Fix this, and the solution to the cloak price issue is finally complete. The cheaper prototype cloaks are 90% of a solution, finally we can fly our FRIGATES without a 40 million ISK cloak. Just finish that last 10%. =========================================== Recon ships on the other hand are much simpler: there is no solution until the cloak/cyno bug is fixed. If you don't know, the bug is still around. Fitting a cloak and cyno generator on the same ship (no matter if they're disabled, inactive, whatever) prevents either from being activated. It's a known bug, but a solution is nowhere in sight. Without a bug fix, the "sneak behind enemy lines and call in the capital ships" role is just broken. The only advantage to using a recon ship to make your cyno field is the lower fuel use, and a little more fuel is a lot cheaper than buying a 100 million ISK recon cruiser every time you make a cyno field. Fortunately force recons are already extremely powerful and useful ships, so the lost cyno role is more of an annoyance than a crippling flaw.
Waxau Liberty Rogues	Posted - 2007.01.05 09:05:00 - [4] In regards to cov ops being the only cloakers, i personally think that is utterly stupid. But ill explain why: As of right now Cov ops and force recons are the only ships that can cloak. Now - The bonus of Cov Ops is that theyre fast, agile, quick, and are limited to scouting. Thats their role (aswell as probing). They have no similar roles as force recon. Force recons arent particularly manuverable compared to the Force recons, and as such arent as good at scouting. Theyre not fast, manuverable yada yada. But - They dont have much damage/no damage. Theyre pure gang ships. If the ships didnt have the ability to fit cloaks, then 1. Gangs would be alot more boring, and 2. Fights wouldnt be as tactical. Take for example this situation: You're camping a gate. You're flying a falcon, and you're there with your gang. Now the cov ops of the enemy shows that theres no ECM ship in your gang. So they fit likewise. Then BAM - They jump thru and then...you uncloak, and jam. They didnt know of that ECM support, called primary on the wrong target, and so on.
Ather Ialeas Amarr Karjala Inc. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.01.05 09:32:00 - [5] Anathema needs more CPU. That's all I have to say.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.05 09:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Stealth bombers: Seige launchers aren't the solution... half the firepower of a Raven isn't going to be a threat to battleships (or even many cruisers/BCs). But if they can warp cloaked then they become a highly effective wolf pack. Not there to replace a cloaked raven, they're frigs after all, but working together means that they pose a threat. The option to fit seige launchers means that that threat is more noticable to larger scale ships. It would all depend on what you intended to hunt really. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Stealth bombers: .....ability to warp while cloaked........Remove the frustrating warp problems...laughable warp range makes them useless. Nobody wants to wait for the Manticore to finish crawling across every system...... I covered this in the post. Make all covert ops ships be able to warp cloaked, no matter what cloak they have fitted. The downside would be that if they fitted a proto cloak they'd have to contend with the speed restrictions while cloaked, but still warp cloaked with it fitted. Maybe the answer to the warp problems is warp speed, so they cover larger distances while cloaked, or more cap which would enhance survivability as well. Originally by: Merin Ryskin More damage, especially alpha strike More damage, not necessary but if that comes hand in hand with more alpha strike then so be it. I agree that in some situations, they can't even take out T1 frigs and that shouldn't be the case but making them frigate scale solo-pwnmobiles isn't the answer so it's a fine line to tread. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Fix the speed bonus/penalty stacking on prototype cloaks. Last I heard, this bug was still around, they don't stack properly and the result is a significant speed reduction even at Covert Ops V. If covert ops ships were able to warp while cloaked then this would be an acceptable problem. Fit a covert ops cloak, and have full speed or fit a improved/proto cloak and have the speed problems while cloaked but still be able to warp. If it were to be introduced, then there is no problem, if it isn't then the problem remains as you describe it. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Take a look at the fitting costs again....so a little more grid/cpu would be nice. Agreed. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Recon ships.....there is no solution until the cloak/cyno bug is fixed. Originally by: Merin Ryskin The only advantage to using a recon ship to make your cyno field is the lower fuel use, and a little more fuel is a lot cheaper than buying a 100 million ISK recon cruiser every time you make a cyno field. So lets introduce more incentive to use them then. If it is to be able to cloak straight away or immediatley be able to shut of the cyno when it's used, or to have to wait for a minute before it can do either.....? That can be thrashed out. At the moment, with or without an ability to sneak behind enemy lines, I won't use recon to do it because it is simply going to die. So I use a cyno alt instead. So the concept for the ship is wasted.... This whole re-vamp wouldn't be able to be done without a re-write of the system anyway so this would be the ideal time to address that situation. Making suggestions can't be based around current accepted bugs. They have to be made around the way things should work, on the assumption that they will be fixed and we can change things from there.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.05 09:54:00 - [7] Edited by: Arte on 05/01/2007 10:06:45 Originally by: Waxau In regards to cov ops being the only cloakers, i personally think that is utterly stupid.... Sorry Waxau, you mis-read my post. I would agree that allowing only covert ops ships to cloak would be totally utterly utterly stupid. Let me repeat exactly what I said in the post. Quote: All cloaks allow warp while cloaked when fitted to covert ops class ships only. Now I'll rephrase it. I could have perhaps said Quote: allow all covert ops class ships to warp cloaked *no matter what type of cloak they have fitted* and any other ship can still fit cloaks, and suffer the penalies as they do now... but not warp as they covert ops class ships could (unless they uncloak) Edit: I've amended the original post for clarification.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.05 10:00:00 - [8] Originally by: Ather Ialeas Anathema needs more CPU. That's all I have to say. Agreed. But that goes hand in hand with other detailed changes required such as: Quote: "why has the helios only got 2 high slots and a hybrid turret bonus which it can never use as it fits a cloak and a probe launcher". The whole system needs a revamp. Individual ships have been borked for so long it's just not funny as they simply haven't evolved with the rest of Eve.
Jimmy Doe Caldari Bladerunners Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.01.05 11:05:00 - [9] an idea i had was to have only 1 cloaking device that can fit any ship with standard penlaties like the prototype and make the covert ops ships/recons have cloaking as an ability. the bombers are totally screwed at this point. the manticore is the only one that is half way worthwhile so we'll talk about its bonuses: current: Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus: 19.65% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs and 5% bonus to Cruise Missile kinetic damage per level Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% reduction in Cruise Launcher powergrid needs and 25% bonus to cloaked velocity per level new: Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% bonus ot kinetis missile damage, 5% bonuse to em, thermal, explosive missile damage per level. Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to missile launcher rate of fire. 10% bonus to missile velocity. special ability: can warp while cloaked. 98-100% reduction in powergrid and cpu needs of Cruise missile launchers add 1 more launcher hardpoint to all bombers just a thought. You look at me and you laugh at the noob, but look at your wallet and see that insurance the SCC just paid you for your loss
Sokratesz Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2007.01.05 11:24:00 - [10] One option to boost stealth bombers. Special ability: 100% penalty to siege and cruise missile rate of fire, 100% bonus to siege and cruise missile damage. Better alpha strike, same DPS. Basilisk Fitting Link
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.05 13:26:00 - [11] Originally by: Sokratesz One option to boost stealth bombers. Special ability: 100% penalty to siege and cruise missile rate of fire, 100% bonus to siege and cruise missile damage. Better alpha strike, same DPS. That would about cover it, but isn't the rate of fire horrendous already? Maybe just the damage increase but no penalty to rate of fire. They are fragile and can blow up easily and that should remain as it is to offset any further advantages that they get (like warp-when-cloaked) The force recon for example aren't great damage dealers to offset their EW and cloak advantages.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.05 14:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Sokratesz Special ability: 50% penalty to siege and cruise missile rate of fire, 100% bonus to siege and cruise missile damage. Fixed. With -100% they would have an "infinite" time between shots.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.05 15:54:00 - [13] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Sokratesz Special ability: 50% penalty to siege and cruise missile rate of fire, 100% bonus to siege and cruise missile damage. Fixed. With -100% they would have an "infinite" time between shots. That would work... Current rate of fire for T2 Cruiser launchers is 17,60 sec before skills. New rate of fire after penalty but at max missile skills would be about 22-23 seconds, 23-24 for T1 launchers. But for double the damage. How about the other proposals though? Any thoughts on them?
Fortune B	Posted - 2007.01.05 15:56:00 - [14] This is only for the stealthbomber!!! Ok there is probably another way to do it allso. And that is ofcource with a new lancher. This is what i thot up doing dinner today =). Ok Lats call it Missiletube and the T2 version shuld be called Missiletubes. The T2 shuld be able to have 1-2 missiles in them and the t2 version shuld be able to have 2-4 and this includes all missiles from rockets to torpedoes. They have realy slow ROF. There shuld allso be a new ammotype, nukes. And the nukes shuld only be possible to shoot with the tubes. Nukes: Valocity: 1,000 m/sec Flight Time: 20.00 Sec Explo Rad: 1000m Explo Vel: 300m/sec DMG is different from torps it is all dmg types: EM: 100 HP Therm: 100 HP Ken: 100 HP Expl: 100 HP Radiation: 200 HP/sec (or maby 1000HP/10sec) This dmg comes from a radiation cloud that you get dmg from being in so that this dmg dos not effect on hit, this shuld be on a delay like the effect start maby 10 - 20 sec after the explosion. So smaller ships thats moving wont be affected at all. This affect stays for lets say i dont know it culd be from 2 - 10 min i dont know this ecsactly. This dmg is withing the explosion rad and does not stack i mean an aria is ether contaminated or not. And for ships to be affected they shuld have to spend at least 20 sec in the area. This makes for a powerful weapon against stationary targets all the stats i have writen i just made up and may be modded in meany ways. And other effect this culd maby have is that ite scrambels evryone withing 5k of the detonation like and ECM Burst. (This might make it totaly overpowerd or not i dont know) Why this whay? Becaus this makes the weapon good against stationary targets like POS and when you have 2 fleets sitting in there corner of the screen and fiering they wont take that mutch dmg if they move out the way but they will have to move and things might get messy as remotereps get out of range ans so. Yet against single targets thay arent more effecting than a torp. The radiational dmg shuld be affected by sigradius of the ship so like a bs with a sig radius of 500m shuld only take 50% of the total radiation dmg so that this makes it more for big stationary targets like POS or carriers and titans. Yet they have an effect in the fleetbattles to as an iritation moment. This culd make for some hit and run POS attacs and it dont help to fire all 3 missiles on the same target nether sins the radiational dmg dosent stack. So a hit and run will be like the bomber decloacs and locks 3 targets fire one nuke at eatch and then run. And maby the cloudharvesters shuld be able to decontaminate the aria quite fast so that you can stop the radiational dmg to like POS with a small little ship or something. Sorry for por english and this is just thots. I wuld be happy for any imput and i might reply with something about how to do with force reacon how to make em viable option.
Stripminer01	Posted - 2007.01.05 17:44:00 - [15] hey, why not allow cov ops to be covert in a true sense. allow them the ability to pop cyno's and "covertly" process a session change like before
Borasao	Posted - 2007.01.05 17:53:00 - [16] Quote: Radiation: 200 HP/sec (or maby 1000HP/10sec) Just say NO to DOTs.
Fortune B	Posted - 2007.01.05 18:54:00 - [17] Why say no to DOT it is for them to be effective agains imobile targets like POS i guess that Webifiers can be an issue with this but it is probably possible to solv.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa The Perfect Harvesting Experience	Posted - 2007.01.05 18:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Stripminer01 hey, why not allow cov ops to be covert in a true sense. allow them the ability to pop cyno's and "covertly" process a session change like before Nice idea, remove the gate-flash for Covert Ops and Recon Ships. Originally by: Fortune B Why say no to DOT it is for them to be effective agains imobile targets like POS i guess that Webifiers can be an issue with this but it is probably possible to solv. Same reason a Dominix can't launch 15 drones anymore.
Fortune B	Posted - 2007.01.05 19:03:00 - [19] ??? Thats not an anser pleas explain! Why say no to DOT?
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa The Perfect Harvesting Experience	Posted - 2007.01.05 19:06:00 - [20] Because DOT will be a major lag-inducer.
Fortune B	Posted - 2007.01.05 19:08:00 - [21] Well make it a evry 1 or 2 minyte dmg and that wont be an issue
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa The Perfect Harvesting Experience	Posted - 2007.01.05 19:10:00 - [22] It is either a big issue, or not worth bothering with. You're input is however highly creative.
Borasao	Posted - 2007.01.05 19:27:00 - [23] Originally by: Fortune B Why say no to DOT it is for them to be effective agains imobile targets like POS i guess that Webifiers can be an issue with this but it is probably possible to solv. Because a) They are hard to play balance... look at the various discussions in EQ and other games about them. 2) Having yet-another-cloud to draw will just create lots of graphics lag (think of 100 ships all firing their DOT-clouds and having 100 of them to draw on the screen). D) There are already mechanics in the game that will allow for higher damage against immobile (slow moving) targets (just check out the way missile damage is already calculated).
Aseir Miristar	Posted - 2007.01.06 06:03:00 - [24] Edited by: Aseir Miristar on 06/01/2007 06:00:22 Alt post. Oops.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2007.01.06 06:06:00 - [25] Originally by: Arte Originally by: Merin Ryskin Stealth bombers: Seige launchers aren't the solution... half the firepower of a Raven isn't going to be a threat to battleships (or even many cruisers/BCs). But if they can warp cloaked then they become a highly effective wolf pack. Not there to replace a cloaked raven, they're frigs after all, but working together means that they pose a threat. The option to fit seige launchers means that that threat is more noticable to larger scale ships. It would all depend on what you intended to hunt really. Well, the extra DPS from torps vs. cruise isn't all that much. But my main point was it's not as simple as some people think, just switching cruise for torps without any other fixes will accomplish nothing. Quote: Originally by: Merin Ryskin Fix the speed bonus/penalty stacking on prototype cloaks. Last I heard, this bug was still around, they don't stack properly and the result is a significant speed reduction even at Covert Ops V. If covert ops ships were able to warp while cloaked then this would be an acceptable problem. Fit a covert ops cloak, and have full speed or fit a improved/proto cloak and have the speed problems while cloaked but still be able to warp. It's not a balance issue, it's just a bug. Prototype cloaks (and faction/COSMOS apparently) stack correctly and will allow you to fly faster while cloaked starting at Covert Ops IV. The 25% cloaked speed per level offsets the cloak penalty directly. But with prototype cloaks (and ONLY prototype cloaks) there's something wrong with the stacking order, and it's not a direct offset. The result is even at Covert Ops V, you still fly a lot slower. Quote: Making suggestions can't be based around current accepted bugs. They have to be made around the way things should work, on the assumption that they will be fixed and we can change things from there. Well, the point is we have no idea how well balanced the current bonus is, because it's completely broken. With the cloak/cyno bug, no sane person would even consider using a recon ship for that role. So we have no experience to say what other changes it may or may not need. It could be perfectly balanced right now, as long as the bug is fixed. Or maybe it needs an extra benefit to be cost-effective. Maybe it's TOO effective. Who knows. But until it's actually working, there's no point in worrying about balancing it.
Arte Warspite Developments	Posted - 2007.01.06 17:37:00 - [26] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Well, the extra DPS from torps vs. cruise isn't all that much. But my main point was it's not as simple as some people think, just switching cruise for torps without any other fixes will accomplish nothing. Ok, I accept that, I'm not a missile person. I'd read about options to be able to fit citadel launchers, maybe that's an option. The point is looking at ways to give them more versatility. That is to say to be more of a threat to bigger ships without being pwnmobiles against frigs that can't be combated by anyone but the most skilled/luckiest pilot. Originally by: Merin Ryskin (stuff about bugs....) But with prototype cloaks (and ONLY prototype cloaks) there's something wrong with the stacking order, and it's not a direct offset. The result is even at Covert Ops V, you still fly a lot slower.... At present the protocloak is bugged, not disputing that. But read all of the proposals in my thread collectively. This isn't about stealth bombers, it's about the whole system. The bombers would lose that bonus anyway. The point being that being able to fit covert ops cloaks they'd have normal speed whilst cloaked, fitting an improved cloak, they'd have less, and fitting prototype cloaks (bugged or not) they'd have right down to 10% of their speed but still warp while cloaked. This preserves the market for covert ops cloaks and gives huge benefit to fitting them, but allows the options to not fit them should you be slightly strapped for cash... you pay the money, you get the benefit, you don't? you lose the benefit but not the functionality. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Well, the point is we have no idea how well balanced the current bonus is, because it's completely broken. With the cloak/cyno bug, no sane person would even consider using a recon ship for that role. No pilot can use the recon ships in their intended role at the moment because of the coding issues. I doubt very much I'd even consider using anything other than a cyno alt even if I could sneak in cloaked, only to be uncloaked and immovable for the full 10 minutes relying on being able to dampen someone and do pitiful damage against him to survive... ...so we'd need a less harsh penalty to firing up a cyno with benefit to using a 150+ mil isk ship in hostile space to call in a cyno, instead of just heavy scout for gank squads. Originally by: Merin Ryskin So we have no experience to say what other changes it may or may not need...It could be perfectly balanced right now, as long as the bug is fixed. Or maybe it needs an extra benefit to be cost-effective. Maybe it's TOO effective. Who knows. But until it's actually working, there's no point in worrying about balancing... The bugs aren't so complicated that we can't consider other options until they are fixed on the premise that we just dont know how it's supposed to work. We do have the experience to know what changes are needed, we know that if the prototype cloak was balanced then we'd fly a bit faster... how hard is that? We know that if the cyno/cloak bug was fixed we could sneak in and still be vulnerable to ships for 10 minutes with only ECM to save us. It's not hard to use our imagination... I'm on about changing the *whole Covert-Ops system*. Not just balancing a the stealth bomber and the prototype cloak which this thread seems to have turned into. In changing that system, it would offer the opportunity to recode the system and address the inherant problems that there are now.
Venkhar Krard	Posted - 2007.01.06 17:59:00 - [27] Edited by: Venkhar Krard on 06/01/2007 18:06:07 I like all the changes from the first post. Not overpowered and needed.
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union	Posted - 2007.01.06 19:49:00 - [28] Stealths are easy to kill and don't cause much damage, right? Why not just double the rate of fire. Easy to kill, missile-spewing, frigate. Now it doesn't have to live in fear of every ship out there (just t2 frigs and the snipers), and can be used to boost fleet firepower. Just a thought... --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Venkhar Krard	Posted - 2007.01.06 20:37:00 - [29] Stealths cause cruise missile dmg to all types of ships from bs to ceptors. They alrteady have very good dmg if someone is holding the target for you. Warping cloaked would be enought of a boost.
ShroomJohnny Gallente Ordo Occultus Deus	Posted - 2007.02.09 02:57:00 - [30] Originally by: Venkhar Krard Stealths cause cruise missile dmg to all types of ships from bs to ceptors. They alrteady have very good dmg if someone is holding the target for you. Warping cloaked would be enought of a boost. I dont think that would be enough since it still has quite a largish signature radius for a Stealth bomber anyway I think. Bonuses to decrease that would be better or have dampeners since its supposed to be a stealth bomber, I.E hit and run purposes. Which also could be solved by better passive target systems. Warping while cloaked is a must have, because if you warp in they see you which is silly. This then removes the point of having a cloak on it in the first place and the point of being faster while cloaked. The Rate of fire needs a slight increase since you need to deliver the dmg quickly, because by the second volley you are locked on to. Other then that it should be ok as you said it does a good amount of damage and bombers are really good for small gangs. it still needs good support hence the cov ops scouting stuff. In space no one hears you scream But whispers can be heard

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.