EVE Search - Stealth bombers? Nemesis?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Stealth bombers? Nemesis?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dragonrazor Amarr	Posted - 2007.07.01 22:07:00 - [1] Ok so it's been some time since the patch was released that gave SB's a bit of a boost. What is the new thinking on their use and capability? Are they better? worse? I just started training for using stealth ships, and currently can only use the Gallente Nemesis. So what can these ships do now? I'm looking for fittings and operation suggestions? Can the nemesis be used for anything practical now? Really, people need to put up some fitting and use threads for these ships now that some changes have been made... Does having 3 missile tubes change the fitting concept for Nemesis yet? Is it still better to fit 2 rails and two arbs? Please some help is requested... Thanks. ******************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." *******************************************
Sister Fitzter	Posted - 2007.07.02 03:57:00 - [2] 3 cruise launchers can insta pop inties and the new bomb launchers sounds like bad news for t1 gate campers. Concussion bomb = 6400 hp within 15km.
StinkFinger Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.07.02 06:39:00 - [3] those bombs cost about 20mil each and have a 15 second delay before detonating.... Originally by: Karanth That's like sitting on your hand till it goes numb, so it's like a stranger. It's not as satisfying, and I'LL know the difference.
vostok	Posted - 2007.07.02 07:10:00 - [4] Originally by: StinkFinger those bombs cost about 20mil each and have a 15 second delay before detonating.... wow, ok 20 mill a piece thats a bit extreme, i guess it means you need to be really certain your going to deal some damage when you set one off. :S no fun time destroying gate camps for a laugh
Laerise Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.02 08:16:00 - [5] SB / dictor combo anyone?
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.07.02 17:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Laerise SB / dictor combo anyone? Great, I gotta get new undies now. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
xenodia Gallente Shadowrun Company	Posted - 2007.07.02 17:43:00 - [7] Originally by: Laerise SB / dictor combo anyone? Thats just evil. Im glad my alt can fly dictors. /me goes off to train missile bombardment to 5
OldPueblo H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.02 18:35:00 - [8] Edited by: OldPueblo on 02/07/2007 18:36:26 I've always thought bombers useful. Generally those that think they've been worthless haven't been using them in the proper scenarios. Most try to use them solo when in my opinion they are designed to be gang supporting ships. My nemesis can now do just over 2200 raw thermal per volley with the three launchers, and still have CPU for two damps and a sensor booster. I am quite pleased. Below is what I generally use for a cruise platform. Haven't settled on a bomb one yet. 1x prototype cloak / 3x arbalest launchers 1x named sensor booster / 2x named sensor damps (don't recall which, but its a tight fit) 2x ballistic control IIs 2x warhead calefaction rigs (these increase launcher cpu requirements so you may want to leave them off if you have lower skills or poor named mods.) There is a hardwire implant that can save you some more cpu from the launchers. I'm looking through LP stores trying to find it, its kta100 or kta1000 I believe. That puts each cruise missile doing 743 each and roughly 190 dps. I use the prototype cloak because speed is less important when engaging at range, and the improved just takes too much valuable CPU. The damps can protect you from being targeted back (so you can re-cloak) and can also surprise neutralize ewar ships that are attacking your gang. It makes dictors run away nicely.
OldPueblo H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:35:00 - [9] Edited by: OldPueblo on 03/07/2007 18:35:47 Yay my tightly squeezed bomber with .5 cpu left is now over by 2.93 on cpu due to this latest patch. I was already not using a mid slot due to no more cpu. There's just something annoying about being forced to use the most expensive stuff to be able tighly squeeze things on a ship, otherwise you just have to fit a far less effective ship. And I am already using those most expensive modules that use the least cpu, so there is nothing left to do but lower the effectiveness even more by losing another useful module. Well the bomber is already a highly specialized/niche type of ship, there's only two effective fittings for it really in my opinion, otherise why use it.
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:41:00 - [10] Originally by: OldPueblo Edited by: OldPueblo on 03/07/2007 18:35:47 Yay my tightly squeezed bomber with .5 cpu left is now over by 2.93 on cpu due to this latest patch. I was already not using a mid slot due to no more cpu. There's just something annoying about being forced to use the most expensive stuff to be able tighly squeeze things on a ship, otherwise you just have to fit a far less effective ship. And I am already using those most expensive modules that use the least cpu, so there is nothing left to do but lower the effectiveness even more by losing another useful module. Well the bomber is already a highly specialized/niche type of ship, there's only two effective fittings for it really in my opinion, otherise why use it. Don't use damps, it's not a damp ship... Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
OldPueblo H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:52:00 - [11] Originally by: maarud Originally by: OldPueblo Edited by: OldPueblo on 03/07/2007 18:35:47 Yay my tightly squeezed bomber with .5 cpu left is now over by 2.93 on cpu due to this latest patch. I was already not using a mid slot due to no more cpu. There's just something annoying about being forced to use the most expensive stuff to be able tighly squeeze things on a ship, otherwise you just have to fit a far less effective ship. And I am already using those most expensive modules that use the least cpu, so there is nothing left to do but lower the effectiveness even more by losing another useful module. Well the bomber is already a highly specialized/niche type of ship, there's only two effective fittings for it really in my opinion, otherise why use it. Don't use damps, it's not a damp ship... Cloaking is a covert ops/bombers real only defense. They don't have the tank of an assault frig, they don't have the speed of an interceptor, all they can do is cloak to keep safe. But they can't cloak if they're targeted, so not using damps makes them even more difficult/dangerous to fly then they already are. One damp would still be usefull, but two was a nicer safety margin. There really isn't much else useful to fit if you think about it. If you think otherwise, feel free to share some ideas. I've flown bombers for quite a while now, but new strategies are always welcome.
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.07.03 20:15:00 - [12] "it's not a damp ship" that's pretty funny... it seems CCP has increased the CPU use of arbalests for no ***** reason other than breaking everyone's bomber setup... that's why your setup won't fit anymore I think you can either tank your bomber or you can fit it with damps... otherwise you won't survive Originally by:** Warrio For some reason I can not move past the image of me sitting at my PC looking at a faction Concord BS with a raging hard-on and honestly, it disturbs me a little.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.07.03 20:15:00 - [13] Small correction you can only insta pop inties if they are standing still. If theyre moving you will hit em for about .1 damage : explosion speed ; look it up. If you reply 2x RSD + web then I'll say nice theory but life dont work like that.
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.07.03 20:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Max Hardcase Small correction you can only insta pop inties if they are standing still. If theyre moving you will hit em for about .1 damage : explosion speed ; look it up. If you reply 2x RSD + web then I'll say nice theory but life dont work like that. I'll just say web, nothing else is needed but then I'm saying too much Originally by: Warrio For some reason I can not move past the image of me sitting at my PC looking at a faction Concord BS with a raging hard-on and honestly, it disturbs me a little.
OldPueblo H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.03 20:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Litus Arowar Originally by: Max Hardcase Small correction you can only insta pop inties if they are standing still. If theyre moving you will hit em for about .1 damage : explosion speed ; look it up. If you reply 2x RSD + web then I'll say nice theory but life dont work like that. I'll just say web, nothing else is needed but then I'm saying too much Webs don't do much good at 50-100km. :p Soloing inty's that are dumb enough to get into web range, sure. But even having a web fitted, an inty can orbit outside web range at high enough speeds to make your cruise missiles do nada.
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.07.03 21:25:00 - [16] Originally by: OldPueblo Originally by: Litus Arowar Originally by: Max Hardcase Small correction you can only insta pop inties if they are standing still. If theyre moving you will hit em for about .1 damage : explosion speed ; look it up. If you reply 2x RSD + web then I'll say nice theory but life dont work like that. I'll just say web, nothing else is needed but then I'm saying too much Webs don't do much good at 50-100km. :p Soloing inty's that are dumb enough to get into web range, sure. But even having a web fitted, an inty can orbit outside web range at high enough speeds to make your cruise missiles do nada. fitting a web on a bomber renders it invincible to inties... I can't talk too much about this, but don't assume bomber pilots are dumb, and I won't assume inty pilots are dumb Originally by: Warrio For some reason I can not move past the image of me sitting at my PC looking at a faction Concord BS with a raging hard-on and honestly, it disturbs me a little.
Kyozoku Mutiny.	Posted - 2007.07.03 21:33:00 - [17] Originally by: StinkFinger those bombs cost about 20mil each and have a 15 second delay before detonating.... The bpos aren't very expensive though.
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.07.03 21:42:00 - [18] bombs are expensive to manufacture due to a high mineral requirement (which you don't get back when you refine them), or at least that's what I heardd now, sorry to derail this thread a bit, but why the HELL did CCP up the requirements of arbalest cruise launchers? they increased them by 3 CPU, which is enough to ** up a bomber fit... of course, I'll adapt, but since cruise launchers have been around forever, and are presumably balanced on battleships, is it possible that CCP would nerf them to make fitting bombers tougher? I'm just at a loss Originally by:** Warrio For some reason I can not move past the image of me sitting at my PC looking at a faction Concord BS with a raging hard-on and honestly, it disturbs me a little.
OldPueblo H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.03 23:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Litus Arowar bombs are expensive to manufacture due to a high mineral requirement (which you don't get back when you refine them), or at least that's what I heardd now, sorry to derail this thread a bit, but why the HELL did CCP up the requirements of arbalest cruise launchers? they increased them by 3 CPU, which is enough to **** up a bomber fit... of course, I'll adapt, but since cruise launchers have been around forever, and are presumably balanced on battleships, is it possible that CCP would nerf them to make fitting bombers tougher? I'm just at a loss Looks like I can fit the Zainou Gnome KTA100 hardwiring implant that lowers launcher cpu needs by 3%, and end up with .3 cpu left, fitting everything as before. All that just to fit a ship for what I think is its intended purpose. I wonder if CCP is trying to push people towards using the hardwiring more since they are available in the LP stores and stuff.
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2007.07.03 23:22:00 - [20] hell, it didn't break my setup, I just have to use a named web instead of a t2 web, and an X5 is probably cheaper than a t2 web anyway, but still, it seems like a balance BASED on bombers, as there were no complaints about cruise missiles being used on battleships all these years Originally by: Warrio For some reason I can not move past the image of me sitting at my PC looking at a faction Concord BS with a raging hard-on and honestly, it disturbs me a little.
Foulis Minmatar Chosen Path FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.04 02:47:00 - [21] Originally by: Sister Fitzter 3 cruise launchers can insta pop inties Can: Yes. Will: No. If the inty is moving you do little to no damage. ---- Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari NO WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE SPELLED WITH THE NUMBER "8" IN THEM GODDAMNIT!
Goberth Ludwig eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.04 10:06:00 - [22] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: Sister Fitzter 3 cruise launchers can insta pop inties Can: Yes. Will: No. If the inty is moving you do little to no damage. The problem is with the funny things eve does to your ceptor when you decide to turn or start orbiting - the second you slow down the trail of missiles will hit you and that is going to hurt. Also if you are dampened you will have an hard time orbiting fast within your lock range. - Gob Now with 20% extra emo!

Pages: [1] :: 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.