Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raem Civrie
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 13:24:00 -
[1]
Basic idea: Fighters (launched from carriers) that carry a limited amount of missiles that are strong against capital-sized targets, and require going back to the host carrier for rearming between salvos. That, or cannot be "attached" to other ships or follow in warp (due to "support requirements".
Why: Get carriers involved in capital combat, but forcing them to participate on-site. The whole risk vs. reward thing.
Why not: Might make carriers "too versatile".
Why didn't you prepare this thread more you useless slacker: Lazy! ---
|
Pord
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 13:35:00 -
[2]
would make dreads obsolite and carriers overpowered
not signed
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 13:54:00 -
[3]
Only for Motherships. Only one bomb per attack run. Only very short attack range so they're not used against towers.
Launch. Attack. Return. Dock. Launch. Etc.
Slower than normal fighters, vulnerable on approach and return to support fleet fire.
Image example of a "Fomori" Gallente Fighter Bomber.
That's how I imagine they could work out. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Raem Civrie
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 13:59:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Raem Civrie on 24/08/2009 14:00:18
Originally by: Pord would make dreads obsolite and carriers overpowered
not signed
A concern, but bomber-carriers would be far more vulnerable than a dread in siege. Also, they would not necessarily have to match a dreadnought's sustained DPS.
Originally by: Abrazzar Only for Motherships. Only one bomb per attack run. Only very short attack range so they're not used against towers.
Launch. Attack. Return. Dock. Launch. Etc.
Slower than normal fighters, vulnerable on approach and return to support fleet fire.
Image example of a "Fomori" Gallente Fighter Bomber.
That's how I imagine they could work out.
I thought about requiring them to dock but that docking/relaunching is already clunky. Requiring them to retreat to a certain radius around the host carrier/MS would be enough. Even without docking/relaunching you still have the travel time for the fighters. And anyway, if player ships can magically teleport stuff into their hangars (whatevs), why couldn't the bombers do the same?
As for the towers, sure they couldn't target the towers themselves but I imagine they'd be good against the offensive structures, leaving the dreadnoughts to target the tower itself. ---
|
Miilla
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 14:23:00 -
[5]
I said NO bombs, just cruise missiles as its a fighter not a bomber, ie to replace the old Stealth bomber we had (except no bomb fitting).
|
Flying ZombieJesus
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 20:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Miilla I said NO bombs, just cruise missiles as its a fighter not a bomber, ie to replace the old Stealth bomber we had (except no bomb fitting).
Did you even read the OP?
|
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 22:25:00 -
[7]
Edited by: ShadowGod56 on 24/08/2009 22:25:23
Originally by: Abrazzar Only for Motherships. Only one bomb per attack run. Only very short attack range so they're not used against towers.
Launch. Attack. Return. Dock. Launch. Etc.
Slower than normal fighters, vulnerable on approach and return to support fleet fire.
Image example of a "Fomori" Gallente Fighter Bomber.
That's how I imagine they could work out.
this
|
Varrakk
Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.06 09:50:00 -
[8]
Not that I expected CCP to figure out a proper way to fix Titans. They failed to see where the real problem is, which isn't the Doomsday.
Core problem is they can be used virtually without risk with the current agility fit. Make it stuck for 90-120 seconds after firing its Doomsday and you wont see Titans being used at every conceivable opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |