|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.04.15 04:13:00 -
[1]
Ive been flying a widow for about 4 months or so, and Id imagine I'm one of maybe one or two dozen who use it in 0.0 space, and as such I am uniquely qualified to talk about how well its doing and what changes need to be done to get people to use them.
I am in Goonfleet, and I am the only one using any sort of black ops battleship at all in our "Black Ops Squadron" which is devoted to flying around enemy hostile systems for months at a time and for which it seems like the Black Ops Battleships should be made for. However they have largely failed to meet the the expcetaction of quality that one would expect of a ship that requires so many sp, and isk to fly.
I request that the following changes be made.
1, The Fuel-Bay - This would be a good start to making it more useable but im worried that there won't be enough room even with this. The problem is that in order to move my gang of say ten recons for a 3ly (average jump) its going to cost around 500 istopes per recon per ly (a falcon for example is 606 per/ly) and this is WITH jump portal operation 4. With the current system I can only carry around 3250 istopes with my ammo which means that out of the 10 recons I can only send 2-3 of them. Let me carry the equivalent of 5k isotopes (750 m^3) in the fuelbay and I could actually fulfill the role.
2, Make Covert Cynos Work in Cyno-Jammed systems - In order to have a covert cyno you had to have someone waste over a million sp training up cyno 5 a skill that is worthless for anything other then this. Making it so that the cyno only lasts 30 seconds and uses 5 lo is a fairly decent return on those SP, but the general plan of most alliances these days in 0.0 is to cyno jam EVERY SYSTEM. I can't even use my widow half the time and its only going to get worse as more and more towers get put up. How am I supposed to plant "reconnaissance and espionage forces in enemy territory" if every single system in enemy territory is cyno jammed? In another 4 months the widow will just be a glorified stealth bomber.
3, Buff Them - In your live dev blog you admitted that they came pre-nerfed to have them avoid being the uberships. Heres what I think each ship needs to get buffed
Widow - Hopefully all of them but at LEAST one, -A bonus to rate of fire maybe up to 7.5%, the dps on the widow is very subpar when you consider they can't use drones when they are engaging from 100km away - a bonus to ecm jammer strength up to 25%, why does the most expensive and skill intensive ship in the game not have the best jammer strength?
Sin - The biggest problem with the sin is that it would lose to a t1 version of itself. Come on CCP thats pretty pathetic for a ship you're spending half a billion for. It would be nice to get some gallente specced hopefuls to comment on how to bring the sin up to par but maybe change the drone bonus to a hybrid ranged bonus instead so it can actually engage.
Panther, Redeemer Don't know enough about them to speculate but anybody who does is feel free to post with what they think should be changed.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 23:13:00 -
[2]
Thanks for all the comments about the ships. I had thought too about raising the ly range but I had initially thought the fuel cost would be too prohibitive to be of much use although with the fuel bay it would become more viable.
Naturally of course I don't expect all the changes to be made (although it would be nice) but I want to iterate that for operating in 0.0 fixing it so covert cynos work in cyno jammed systems is essential because in enemy territory practically all the systems have cyno jammers in them and it simply isn't practical to take them down even if they are undefended.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 02:47:00 -
[3]
I don't know we might take out those 30 gun deathstars with out ten man remote rep pilgrim gang
But for working in 0.0 black ops won't even be able to operate in another three months as people just plop down cyno jammers in every system, and its not like when I find an isk farmer ratting in a system I can go and my recon alt take the time to knock down a 1mn hp module and then go after him. |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 05:34:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Ath Amon
Originally by: Matrixcvd
I don't fly them but i want to some day
1. Increase fuel capacity
2. Increase Jump Range
3. Give it Covert Ops cloaking
4. Allow Covert Cyno to open in Cyno Jammed Systems
1 and 2 are obvious. 3 Wouldn't overpower the ship but give it great versatility to do its thing in system, warping cloaked should be a must. 4 makes perfect sense. The true purpose of a cyno jammer is to prevent capitals from jumping into a system to "quickly" dispatch POSs. A BO jumping in recons is not on the same threat level and would be wasting their collective time shooting a jammer and die horribly.
This allows small gangs to go roaming behind enemy lines. I was so excited when i saw the introduction of these ships only to have my hopes pre-nerfed... do the right thing and make these ships worth it!
Give small gang PVP a boost for once
agreed too
personally dont like much the idea to make them good combat ships, they role is different, if they had no jump drive/jump portal then yes but the way they are designed is not necessary
personally i see them eventually more inclined to support trying to stay out of the heart of battle, so i will prefer bonuses to EW to eventually help spec ops comrades something like
widow -> ecm
sin -> sensor damps
reedemer -> tracking disr
phanter -> webber (note not TP as it is totally useless here for obvious reasons)
said that cover ops groups kinda lack an "heavy hitter ship" maybe a t2 BC can do that givin to these groups the punch they lack and keeping the black op more as a bridger/support
also personally i think something have to be done to local too but thats another issue and discussion :P
I don't know about all that but it needs a buff.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Maraleith
And the balancing weaknesses of all these proposals is .......... nothing.
More dps, more ewarfare capability, capability to avoid defensive networks, warp while cloaked, tech 2 tanks; where is the downside? Where is the risk?
Your post implies that you want an uber pwnmobile that basically cannot be detected, cannot be tackled, gives you virtually impunity to roam around enemy systems without risk, killing anyone in those systems caught alone without risking anything.
Basically, you want it all and you won't get it. You may get warp while cloaked, you may get a cargo bay increase, you may even get jumping into cyno jammed systems; but more dps and more ewar is game breaking.
Basically, you want the uber untouchable griefmobile and no, you shouldn't be allowed to have it.
If anything, with all the pluses you should be given, you should have less dps and weaker sensor strengths so you have to fight real close risking your billion isk ship to engage. Then the risk reward ratio is much more scary. Yes, you can wreak carnage, but if you are not careful, you're gonna die.
That's the way is ought to be too.
Maralieth who the heck are you talking to? It seems like you combined everyones individual plan for buffing into one big superplan and then yelled at the hypothetical person suggesting it.
Also your points are horrible and ill thought out, Because we spent the time training for 6 months and spending over half a billion of isk uninsurable putting a loss equal to an insured capital we should have battleships that can't kill anything?
Its painfully obvious that you have never spent more then a day in 0.0 and have never tryed to use black ops battleships for their stated description in the game.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 05:35:00 -
[6]
Those changes would go a long way in helping but no one wants to wait until sov changes which could be half a year away to fix covert cynos, especially when it shouldn't be especially hard to fix them at all.
Remember all those other changes are meaningless if we can't even get to the target.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 14:24:00 -
[7]
The problem I have with adding more range is with the current fuel costs I rarely jump bridge anyone past 2ly anyway.
It costs 2424 isotopes to take a falcon 8ly (with jump portal operation 4 which is a rank 14 skill) which takes up 365/550 of my cargohold already. Even if more range is added, as long as the bridge fuel cost per ly stays the same it will never be used for bridging. |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 05:03:00 -
[8]
It would be really nice to get official recognition that us black ops bs pilots haven't been forgotten. |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 19:40:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Pringlescan on 07/05/2008 19:40:59
Theres no need to wait for a patch possibly months away to fix covert cynos and cynosural jammers when it can be fixed in probably 30 seconds by a coder and just added on to the end of the next patch with a note.
This would keep a lot of us blops bs pilots happy while waiting for the other buffs.
Also it is a shame that they made the sin so useless for combat.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: yaizon
I agree that the black ops ships need the fuel bay and other role specific enhancements. However, as for the increased dps or tanking abilities, my thoughts are that such a high tech ship should be somewhat fragile.
Consider that this ship building facility took a hull of an existing ship and replaced its 'battle components' with high tech cloak/jump components. from that perspective I see the black ops as being a glass portal and not a 'has to be better in every aspect' type of t2 variant.
Well it would be nice to have at least one or the other, right now its covert capabilities are a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|