EVE Search - Heavy Stealth Bombers?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Heavy Stealth Bombers?

» 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)
ImmortaL ZoorZ Cruoris Seraphim	Posted - 2008.03.01 12:28:00 - [1] After HiCs maybe some cruiser sized bombers able to warp cloaked and fit maybe 5 cruise or is that too over powered. I just love the idea for these ships but in practice there a hard ship to fit into any neiche..
Bahhs Deep	Posted - 2008.03.01 13:05:00 - [2] Originally by: ImmortaL ZoorZ After HiCs maybe some cruiser sized bombers able to warp cloaked and fit maybe 5 cruise or is that too over powered. I just love the idea for these ships but in practice there a hard ship to fit into any neiche.. It would probably require some kind of penalty such as RoF or have no damage bonuses. Definantly though, ANY kind of SB should not be able to warp cloaked. And maybe give it an increased cloaked velocity maybe arround 140%. I havn't done the math, but this should make it possible to go about as fast as a SB with ODI II's in the lows.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.03.01 13:11:00 - [3] will never happen thankfully, stealth bombers are still broken and worthless and they are buffed and rebuffed every eight weeks in other words, you say "bombs!", and I say "who cares?" until that abortive failure is resolved bombers aren't seeing larger counterparts ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.01 16:00:00 - [4] We already have battleship-sized stealth bombers. They're called "Black Ops". 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.03.01 16:03:00 - [5] Instead of fitting cruise launchers, fitting respective long range BS-sized guns. Because... that would just be cool.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.03.01 16:03:00 - [6] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 01/03/2008 16:04:23 Edit: Double fail.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.01 16:12:00 - [7] Originally by: Erotic Irony will never happen thankfully, stealth bombers are still broken and worthless and they are buffed and rebuffed every eight weeks in other words, you say "bombs!", and I say "who cares?" until that abortive failure is resolved bombers aren't seeing larger counterparts Actually we say "cruise missiles".
Zirofal'dan eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.01 17:30:00 - [8] Originally by: Erotic Irony stealth bombers are still broken and worthless This man speaks the truth. Stealth bombers are broken and serve no purpose. None whatsoever.
RuleoftheBone Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.03.01 17:36:00 - [9] Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 01/03/2008 17:36:41 Originally by: Zirofal'dan Originally by: Erotic Irony stealth bombers are still broken and worthless This man speaks the truth. Stealth bombers are broken and serve no purpose. None whatsoever. According to your killboard you have never flown one. How would you know? Fail "Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
Zirofal'dan eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.01 17:44:00 - [10] Originally by: RuleoftheBone According to your killboard you have never flown one. How would you know? Indeed, I'm just making uninformed comments on the forums! Quote: Fail
Stakhanov Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.03.01 18:41:00 - [11] The niche of stealth bombers is to alpha light ships (frigs and cruisers) using cruises which are normally BS size weapons , so logically the heavy bomber class should use citadel torpedoes with no bonus to explosion radius / velocity , only damage. Can alpha MWDing BS and dealing high damage to capital ships without fearing their fire. Paper ship in other aspects (like recons) and doesn't need any stealth either. Originally by: CCP Mitnal Hi, my name's Mitnal and I'm addicted to locking threads
Bahhs Deep	Posted - 2008.03.02 03:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Erotic Irony will never happen thankfully, stealth bombers are still broken and worthless and they are buffed and rebuffed every eight weeks in other words, you say "bombs!", and I say "who cares?" until that abortive failure is resolved bombers aren't seeing larger counterparts Right, and I'm sure zee Germans had absolutely no use for their U-Boats...
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.03.02 04:17:00 - [13] Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/03/2008 04:18:45 Originally by: Zirofal'dan Originally by: RuleoftheBone According to your killboard you have never flown one. How would you know? Indeed, I'm just making uninformed comments on the forums! Quote: Fail 5 bombs 30 dead battleships or better yet 3 nuet bombs. those are effectve,
Weeka Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.03.02 08:16:00 - [14] Originally by: Bahhs Deep Right, and I'm sure zee Germans had absolutely no use for their U-Boats... But those weren't stuck above water the moment someone saw them, were they
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.02 08:19:00 - [15] Originally by: Weeka Originally by: Bahhs Deep Right, and I'm sure zee Germans had absolutely no use for their U-Boats... But those weren't stuck above water the moment someone saw them, were they Boom. --
ikoban Amarr Scarlet Scourge Society	Posted - 2008.03.02 09:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Stakhanov The niche of stealth bombers is to alpha light ships (frigs and cruisers) using cruises which are normally BS size weapons , so logically the heavy bomber class should use citadel torpedoes with no bonus to explosion radius / velocity , only damage. Can alpha MWDing BS and dealing high damage to capital ships without fearing their fire. Paper ship in other aspects (like recons) and doesn't need any stealth either. omg... 2 such cruisers with 3x citadel weapons would be insane, I seen dreads alpha bs's in one volley into a pod.. add one hic and NO battleship is safe lol.
Mikal Drey ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.02 11:28:00 - [17] Originally by: Akita T We already have battleship-sized stealth bombers. They're called "Black Ops". Only the Widow has launcher slots None can fit a bomb launcher Black Ops are (if anything) Heavy Covert Ops
Mikal Drey ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.02 11:39:00 - [18] Originally by: MotherMoon 5 bombs 30 dead battleships or better yet 3 nuet bombs. those are effectve, IIRC only 4 bombs per grid When are you gonna see 30 BS's all sitting within 15km of each other If you manage to get 5x Stealth bombers even remotly close to that blob I'll be impressed. They certainly are fun ships to fly in gangs and actually do have some use in fleets, I think a heavy cruiser version is indeed the next logical step and could solve the issue with them being paper thin
ShadowlordUK Cruoris Seraphim	Posted - 2008.03.02 11:54:00 - [19] Originally by: ikoban Originally by: Stakhanov The niche of stealth bombers is to alpha light ships (frigs and cruisers) using cruises which are normally BS size weapons , so logically the heavy bomber class should use citadel torpedoes with no bonus to explosion radius / velocity , only damage. Can alpha MWDing BS and dealing high damage to capital ships without fearing their fire. Paper ship in other aspects (like recons) and doesn't need any stealth either. omg... 2 such cruisers with 3x citadel weapons would be insane, I seen dreads alpha bs's in one volley into a pod.. add one hic and NO battleship is safe lol. Erm no .... a stealth bomber can currently one volley (unplated) frigs and do some dmg to cruisers. The next level up would obviously be able to one volley (unplated) cruisers and do some dmg to bs. Which would, in my opinion, be realistic as a viable in game ship... certainly would be a lot more used then the current stealthbombers, since being able to one volley a nano hac would definately be something to smile about Since i'm sat here bored and eve is down I'll speculate on the ship... It would obviously be built on a T1 cruiser hull. The ship would definately have to have a paper thin tank in order to keep the current flavour of the stealthbomber, and also for balance issues. The ship would technically be T2 and therefore would have to have the usual resists bonus... you cant realisticly lower the base hp much below the standard hp of a T1 cruiser and even if you did it would be pretty meaningless anyway. So the obvious solution would be fittings. The heavy bomber would only just have enough grid/cpu to fit a full set of weapons, with max skills. Thereby removing the possibility of people fitting 1600mm plates / large shield extenders. As an additional balancing issue the heavy bomber should not be able to run an active tank equivalent to a hac.. and since the ship would effectively have the slots and resists of a hac that means the cap would have to be nerfed. The primary weapon of the ship (missiles) does not use cap and this ship should not be able to tank anything more then a couple of frigs for any length of time. So the solution would be to nerf the cap down to the level where it can only run small armor reps / shield boosters for any length of time. The lack of fittings would prevent people from fitting medium cap injectors to get around this. Weapons : The ship has to be able to one volley a nano hac without being able to decimate frigs or wipe out bs fleets... The job of one volleying frigates should be preserved for regular stealthbombers, otherwise they would be obsolete. TBH: for reasons of variety and market stability I think the cruise missile has had enough love. In my mind the obvious choice of weapon system for the heavy bomber would be the torpedo. Using siege launchers would neately reduce the heavy bombers ability to insta pop frigs, which solves one problem. Also in terms of flavour, torps are more commonly associated with high dmg then cruise. Ok the ship would have to have some serious bonuses to make torps viable in one volleying cruisers lol... The ships would need a significant velocity bonus to torps. The ships would need torp explosion velocity and radius bonuses, and in order to one volley a cruiser (using roughly 5 siege launchers) the torps would need a dmg bonus. Most importantly the heavy bomber would also have a rof penalty so that alpha strike dmg remains high but actual dps would be equivalent to a caracal. Oh and yeah, the heavy bombers would also be able to use bombs in the same way as regular stealthbombers. (Whether the ship can use slightly more dmg'ing bombs would be up to ccp to decide whether they ever want bombs used in the game at all lol. )
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.03.02 15:18:00 - [20] Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/03/2008 04:18:45 Originally by: Zirofal'dan Originally by: RuleoftheBone According to your killboard you have never flown one. How would you know? Indeed, I'm just making uninformed comments on the forums! Quote: Fail 5 bombs 30 dead battleships or better yet 3 nuet bombs. those are effectve, this is easily the stupidest thing I've read today, are any of those battleships touting a damage control or EANM II? Who would ever train bombs & covert ops to five in their current incarnation? You know a single tier 1 bs would one volley those bombers and the battleships have six times your numbers? the question is all things being equal, would any seasoned pilot choose bombs and bombers to be in their gang when hacs, plated t1 cruisers, a single curse or a myriad of other ships are vastly better? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Zirofal'dan eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.02 15:33:00 - [21] Originally by: Erotic Irony would any seasoned pilot choose bombs and bombers to be in their gang when hacs, plated t1 cruisers, a single curse or a myriad of other ships are vastly better? Nobody would do that. As I said, bombers are broken and serve no purpose. None whatsoever.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.03.02 15:37:00 - [22] Originally by: Zirofal'dan Originally by: Erotic Irony would any seasoned pilot choose bombs and bombers to be in their gang when hacs, plated t1 cruisers, a single curse or a myriad of other ships are vastly better? Nobody would do that. As I said, bombers are broken and serve no purpose. None whatsoever. Concession accepted. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Karrade Krise	Posted - 2008.03.03 01:46:00 - [23] Originally by: Weeka Originally by: Bahhs Deep Right, and I'm sure zee Germans had absolutely no use for their U-Boats... But those weren't stuck above water the moment someone saw them, were they That's because they weren't dumb enough to surface and use their deck guns on a battleship... It's all situational... You're looking at the SB's niche wrong. You're OBVIOUSLY not going to uncloak and engage a 20 man gate camp...(unless you're going to do a suicide bomb run) or even any ship cruiser size and up solo. Stealth Bombers...pick and choose your fights. Cloak...move fairly fast if fitted right while cloaked. Instapop any frig, double shot to T1 haulers. Master of Evasion. Offgrid BM's are your friends. None of these means anything if the pilot doesn't know what he's doing. In a large gang you can use their alphas to kill almost any tank. (sub-cap) A gang of SB's is ALWAYS a happy addition to any fleet. FC can tell them to alpha a primary/secondary target and put a huge hole in it's tank, allowing the rest of the fleet to quickly finish it off. Secondary is whom they will most likely go for though due to missile travel time. Look at some of the SB/Logistics teams and the teams they slaughtered in the Alliance Tourneys...I'm sure they agree that stealth bombers are teh suck. Sig locked, I will not make fun of the forum mods
Nomad Storm Ad Astra Vexillum Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.03.03 02:40:00 - [24] Heavy stealth bomber should be the tech 2 version of teir 2 destroyers and should use torps instead of cruise missiles. Dont think there is much that I wouldnt give for something like this .
Paco Tacos	Posted - 2008.03.03 02:48:00 - [25] Stealth bombers are very effective...just not with bombs lol..no really though ive been of quite a few successful SB ops, with some rapiers of course.
Soviet Orelius Demise and Vestige Black Flag Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.03 03:07:00 - [26] Originally by: Nomad Storm Heavy stealth bomber should be the tech 2 version of teir 2 destroyers and should use torps instead of cruise missiles. Dont think there is much that I wouldnt give for something like this . I can't believe I am going to agree with anything someone I have fought from BRUCE says BUT Nomad is right on one thing. I think a Stealth Bomber in a Destroyer size would be a good idea. Like the relation of Interceptors to Interdictors. Just give them a bonus to range but reduce the numbers of high slots. Adding Torps might work but requires more cross training.
Storm Strike	Posted - 2008.03.03 03:36:00 - [27] Edited by: Storm Strike on 03/03/2008 03:37:35 Originally by: Soviet Orelius I can't believe I am going to agree with anything someone I have fought from BRUCE says BUT Nomad is right on one thing. I think a Stealth Bomber in a Destroyer size would be a good idea. Like the relation of Interceptors to Interdictors. Just give them a bonus to range but reduce the numbers of high slots. Adding Torps might work but requires more cross training. Nice to see you again too . I figured that with torps they could pack a bit more punch and have some chance against t1 cruisers unlike the current stealth bombers that cant kill a plated frig let alone challenge a cruiser. Edit: Stupid alt always defaults
Vyllana	Posted - 2008.03.03 05:48:00 - [28] Even if the thing had 7 torp slots, a 5% bonus to torp damage per level, 3 BCUs, and could use rage torps while doing full damage vs a HAC, it'd still do only: 7 * 1.25 (ship skill) * 1.27 (3 BCUs) * 540 (base dmg) * 1.25 (torp skill) * 1.1 (warhead upgrades) = ~8300 damage. That's not really enough to one volley any HAC (though its borderline on a few). And even so, I think it's pretty obvious CCP would never put in a cruiser sized ship that could fit 7 t2 torp launchers with enough bonuses to make rage torps do full damage vs a nano-HAC going at 3km/s or more. Incidentally, to make it do comparable dps to a Caracal, as someone suggested, it'd also need roughly a ~400% RoF penalty. I suppose you could also give it a 100% torp damage bonus in addition to everything else (so it could 1-volley HACs), and just slap on a 1000% RoF penalty, but it'd just be kinda way out of the realms of being comparable to anything else, so it just seems kinda crazy ;p So I don't really see one-volleying HACs as being a realistic role to try to design a new ship class for ;p
slaminen2	Posted - 2008.03.03 11:01:00 - [29] Ooookay, so some people suggest a ship that can one-volley a multihundred million(is that even a word) HAC at will and cloak before getting targeted? Good job!
Xanos Blackpaw Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2008.03.03 11:22:00 - [30] Originally by: slaminen2 Ooookay, so some people suggest a ship that can one-volley a multihundred million(is that even a word) HAC at will and cloak before getting targeted? Good job! well yeah....that wold be ok in my book if it get destroyed if something sneezes at it. anyway my idea of a heavy bomber would be: Name: Insideous Hull: Arbitrator blablabala background text here(khanid) amarr cruiser bounus: 25% lower sig and 5% smaller explosion radiuos for citadel torps for each lvl of amarr cruiser Heavy bomber bonus: bonus to fitting of citadel cruise lauchers(so it gan fit 3 of them.) 5% faster explosion velocity for each lvl of heavy bomber. slots: 4 high, 3 med, 4 low enough Pg and CPU to be able to fit 3 launchers and a 800 RT plate at max skills. high cap for long warps but crap recharge time, and notice that i didnt say anything about a cloak...its a bomber...not a sub... Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi".

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.