Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No cloak, can only fit bomb launcher, but has assault frigate defenses.
(No turret or launcher hardpoints)

In exchange, can fit 2 bomb launchers.

Wait, you meant tier three, right?

T3 frigates: 2 years ago the answer was 'never gonna happen'.

T3 cruiser with bomb launchers? No. No no no no no no. T3 cruisers are the single worst implemented feature I have ever seen.

T3 bomb launcher module? Why?

This thread confuses me. It's not marauders with bomb launchers. It's something new that takes attention away from other things that need looking at more.

I don't think the OP knows what the term "T3" implies.

Yes but they aren't modular T3 frigates with overblown tank that can cloak, negate bubbles and deal cruiser levels of damage with small weapons. The issues with T3's is that they're supposed to be generalist ships that are reasonbly good at many jobs but not better than a T2 at its specific role.

Instead, for the last 3-4 years we've seen T3's be better than T2 at pretty much everything, have as much as or more tank than a battleship and only slightly less damage.

Let's look at it this way: T3 battleship

Hyperion looking hull. Can launch a maximum of 10 drones at max skills. Gets a damage bonus to drones. Can covert cyno and has 500k EHP, active tanks 1100 dps comfortably. Average dps output 1500-2000dps. This is the kind of ridiculous **** you could expect to see should a T3 battleship project follow the precedent set by T3 cruisers. It doesn't help the game to be more competitive or diverse. What it does is inflate the base requirements for participation in an engagement where these things are included.

Last night I was watching some videos on capital ships (since I don't really know how to use one) and one particular fight I saw was 3-4 proteus' fighting a chimera. Despite the fact that the chimera should theoretically be able to infini-tank the T3's it still got burnt down because the prots were a) too much sustained dps, b) too much tank and too much ease of access to efficient active tanking, c) too many utility slots when combined with the above ppoints

TECH 8 BOMBERS NOW! ALWAYS MORE TECHS!





*ahem*
What's the unfilled niche you're proposing that these would fill?

This would pretty much kill the Stealth Bomber and goes against what CCP have stated as their goal for the ship-rebalancing, where T3 ships are supposed to be more general than T1 while T2 are supposed to be more specialized.

I maintain that the only other ship in the game that should be given bomb launcher capacity is the marauder. Why make a new ship to fill this role when you have another ship already that doesn't have any real place in the game?

Frigate class yes, T3 concept nope and not ready to happen CCP already stated this but welp, it's CCP so...

Dramiel was your T3 frigate, see what it happen before it got nerf? -no need for T3 frigates, no way
And on topic: no need of an expensive T3 cruiser hull bomber class but rather a very tough HIC able to fit cover ops cloak.
AND also need to get tht command sub thrown to oblivion, flushed down the toilets, erased from DB, delete that code line and all references to it then take a red pill and forget how it worked forever.

I see the OP has been revised to Strategic Cruiser bombers. I can't see the advantage of giving up 60% shields for the ability to simply wield a bomb in null or wormhole space.

The question has to be asked.....

why this over a current bomber fitted and rigged for max agility?