These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Vote: Black Ops Battleships and Covert Cloaking Device

First post
Author
Rain6635
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2013-06-10 13:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6635
which is why carriers are used, and not widows. but if you insist on a covert cyno...

the sixty second covert cyno that doesn't put a beacon in overview...

Rainf1337 on Twitch

Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#42 - 2013-06-10 13:45:22 UTC
Yes, would give me a reason to skill for them

Oderint Dum Metuant

Rual Storge
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#43 - 2013-06-10 13:47:45 UTC
All carebear posters in here: 'ohh noes, this is baaaaad !!! less easier isk farming!!!"
All BO pilot poster in here: "ugh finaly, yeees how long does a ship class need to be broken"
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2013-06-10 13:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I blops, k? i love them. but really, for DPS, blops with covops cloak only needs to go as high as a rook. sig radius/strength in numbers. you don't need a covops cloak widow... you need more rooks and falcons, is the solution.
Rual Storge
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-06-10 13:59:54 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
I blops, k? i love them. but really, for DPS, blops with covops cloak only needs to go as high as a rook. sig radius/strength in numbers. you don't need a covops cloak widow... you need more rooks and falcons, is the solution.


Nah, 2 classes would be the best solution, like all T2 ships has
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2013-06-10 14:02:47 UTC
"nah" cuz also stealth bombers.

keep the widow at home as the bridge.
Jitalt Pirkibo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-06-10 14:22:50 UTC
Amanda Chelian wrote:
Really, now? What ever happened to roaming PvP gangs? Or are we just playing Hot-Drops Online now?
It's not as if the BLOPS were specifically tailored to hotdropping, with their ability to bridge cloakies...
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2013-06-10 14:24:34 UTC
as comparing the the Falcon to the Widow.

The Falcon outshines the Widow at all vital points. It has double the scan resolution and a higher sensor strenght, so wether or not it can warp cloaked, the Falcon locks faster and has a stronger resistance against E-war than the Widow, even though the widow won't have a delay after decloaking, the Falcon will lock faster.

as for fearing the widow will become a stealth bomber, the scan resolution of a steath bomber is 3 times that of a widow by the time the widow has you locked, al but freighters have jumped out, not to mention the Damage application of the widow is terrible compared to a Stealth bomber.


Since E-war isn't efected by size like weapons scan resolution and sensor strenght are much more important than the size of your ship.

the covert op cyo is the only reason to use the widow even if it could warp cloaked it might have some use for hunting large ships, but even then I think it will make little diference.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2013-06-10 14:31:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
here's a thought: the only reason the widow exists is because the rest of the cloakies needed a bridge. the only reason it gets a bonused cloak at all is to feel like "part of the gang".

admit it: you wouldn't even like the widow if it still looked like this
Katia Pwomperson
Doomheim
#50 - 2013-06-10 15:25:17 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:


admit it: you wouldn't even like the widow if it still looked like this


I like the Widow less because it doesn't look like that.
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#51 - 2013-06-10 16:56:58 UTC
AkatokuChaos wrote:
What do you guys think? Should Black Ops Battleships be able to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Devices instead of just up to Improved Cloaking?
Signed. If I'm paying that cost for the hull and that much in skills, cov ops is what I'd expect. I wouldn't even mind losing the cloaked velocity bonus. I'm hoping we see this in their round of tiericide, whenever that ends up being.
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
#52 - 2013-06-10 17:16:43 UTC
Amanda Chelian wrote:

I'm not dismissing the usefulness of a Black Ops having a jump drive, but if the only merit of this ship type involves being cyno'd straight into battle, why wouldn't everyone just use a carrier for it instead? The difference in price isn't really that large, and a carrier can project a lot more DPS on target, tank like a champ, and even provide logistic support for the rest of the gang.


Why not use a carrier instead...

Well, for quite a few reasons:

  • Well fit Blackops do more dps than carriers, and apply it faster (faster lock, not using a weapon system that got to fly to the target
  • Better escapability : blackops do 1000+m/s and can also fit a MJD, a very good quality for hit and run
  • Ability to jump to a covert cyno
  • Ability to portal support before jumping, seriously how can't you see the advantage of bridging recons and bombers for DPS


Blackops are indeed mostly used for hotdrops, and are brutally efficient at it. They are a niche ship, they usually can't withstand a protracted battle, use them accordingly (even if I've actually seen a few triage supported blackops drop be quite successful).

They are very different than carriers, and the rationale for the use of each is quite different...
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#53 - 2013-06-10 17:28:12 UTC
Amanda Chelian wrote:
I'm not underestimating it. I'm just not understanding how running away faster from cloaking makes Black Ops worth their SP investment and price tag in any way, especially since T3 already do the running-away aspect magnitudes better than black ops due to nullifiers.

The SP investment and price tag is surely justified by the Jump Bridge and the jump drive...


I'm not in favour of allowing the Covert Ops cloak at present, not because I believe that the Black Ops are fine as is but because if they had CovOps cloaks their power, through their very high damage and tank potential, would make them the cloak-ganker of choice - by a significant margin. With so many solo-ers using them their current, very group oriented dynamic would become lost.

The problem is that Warping cloaked would probably overpower them but being unable to Warp cloaked rather stymies their operation. If you have a group of bombers warping to a target they could well do with the defence benefits of a Widow's jammers - but the Widow can't warp in with them because it will show up on D-Scan...
Either the Widow ends up waiting to bridge them out and play no part in the fight, or it waits to start its warp until the bombers are close enough to grab a tackle, which may see quite a bit of damage applied before it can get the jams in.

I don't have a solution to this dicotomy I'm afraid, but I would want to keep the Black Ops very group focussed, which (to my mind at present) means no CovOps cloak...
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
#54 - 2013-06-10 17:33:00 UTC
Aeril Malkyre wrote:
AkatokuChaos wrote:
What do you guys think? Should Black Ops Battleships be able to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Devices instead of just up to Improved Cloaking?
Signed. If I'm paying that cost for the hull and that much in skills, cov ops is what I'd expect. I wouldn't even mind losing the cloaked velocity bonus. I'm hoping we see this in their round of tiericide, whenever that ends up being.


What would the blackops doctrine involving warping cloaked be? The ships are used very successfully now, with what was last I checked was one of the best kill ratio in game. Using doctrines that would not benefit from warping cloaked (and that don't benefit much from the current cloak bonus).

zKillboard stats by ship :

Panther: 16,252 kills 322 losses http://zkillboard.com/ship/22440/
Redeemer: 21,446 kills 371 losses http://zkillboard.com/ship/22428/
Sin: 8,303 kills 275 losses http://zkillboard.com/ship/22430/
Widow: 8,046 kills 465 losses http://zkillboard.com/ship/22436/

That doesn't strike me as underpowered. All the whining reeks of incompetence by the people failing to adapt OTOH. It also shows what everyone knew, the Sin and Widow sucks compared to the others, but not for lack of Covert Ops Cloaking Device.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#55 - 2013-06-10 18:01:15 UTC
The DPS on all hulls is fairly anemic. What they should really do is decouple the bridging aspect of the Blops to a different (or even new) ship. A covert cloaked Blops without the bridging ability would work in my opinion and not be too overpowered at all.

Of course this makes too much sense (and is highly opinionated), so whatever.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka

Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-06-10 18:59:55 UTC
I vote YES

For the amount for SP required to fly a blackOps BS, I think its the most skill intensive non-Captial ship in the game or one of the most.

Vote Yes for cloaky warping Black ops!!!

But I AGREE just like RECON cruisers and Covert FRIGS

There should be 2 Classes of Black ops Battleships, 1 of which being able to warp cloacked.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#57 - 2013-06-10 20:52:14 UTC
Thank god game design isn't done by voting. No for me.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Noisrevbus
#58 - 2013-06-10 22:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
AkatokuChaos wrote:
What do you guys think? Should Black Ops Battleships be able to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Devices instead of just up to Improved Cloaking?


WHY?

These threads pop up every other week, yet no one can seem to motivate the reason for the suggestion or provide any example of what they envision with it.

Please, make sure to think about WHY you would want a warp-cloak on your Blops beyond that fact that it "fits the theme". Add some remarks on how you'd intend to use it (it's practical and tactical application) or how you're missing it now. You can't design a game around the name of things (it's called Blackops, they're meant to be cloaky so they need a Blackops ship).

The reason I'm pointing this out is because there are very few situations where a Blackops would properly utilize such a cloak. The Blops have something much better than a cov-cloak: they have a port-drive, suggest improvements to that instead - suggestions that fit your playstyle. There are other "covert theme" changes that would be far more interesting for Blops that would add flavour and dimension to the game instead of just piling on an existing type of cloak without any mention of how you'd intend to use it.

If you can't make a case for WHY a change should take place - it's going to be difficult to get people to side with you.

The WHY is far more important here than the suggestion or the change itself. Convince us!
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#59 - 2013-06-10 23:19:10 UTC
The WHY is fairly easy...people want a battleship sized cloaky recon. Simple.

Now WHY people want that, is entirely a different animal...and who can really explain the wants of the masses.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
#60 - 2013-06-10 23:35:24 UTC
Karash Amerius wrote:
The DPS on all hulls is fairly anemic. What they should really do is decouple the bridging aspect of the Blops to a different (or even new) ship. A covert cloaked Blops without the bridging ability would work in my opinion and not be too overpowered at all.

Of course this makes too much sense (and is highly opinionated), so whatever.


Both the Redeemer and Panther have no trouble going over 1000dps, which is more than the typical carrier that is at same skillset and price point. How much DPS wouldn't be anemic exactly?