• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion
« Previous 1 262 263 264 265 266 547 Next »
[Ship Concept] Ultralight bombers

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (7): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
[Ship Concept] Ultralight bombers
Silver.2
03-28-2011, 03:58 AM,
#31
Unregistered
 

' Wrote:Light bomber? fighter torps only. SNAC? no way. Give it 2 fighter torp slots np,just no SNAC. It would be spammed like crazy for pirating with SNAC.

2 fighter torp slots would make it nearly useless against heavies. And, thus, just make it a stupid excuse for a fighter
Reply  
Offline Shardphoenix
03-28-2011, 07:56 AM,
#32
Member
Posts: 190
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2010

Just give it 29 000 powercore, so it won`t be able to fire SNAC, but still can make use of nova torpedoes. Maybe with 2k recharge to compensate for small core size.

There is NO problem that can`t be solved by the use of high explosives.
  Reply  
Offline Prysin
03-28-2011, 08:35 AM,
#33
Apex Predator
Posts: 3,101
Threads: 165
Joined: Jul 2009

lets put it like this. I fly a BHG Havoc.... Havoc is frightningly agile and i can dodge with it as well as i can do in a sabre... now, orchid is more agile then havoc..... Havoc is agile enough to easyli go toe to toe with a fighter. Orchid is agile enough to take on a HF or two......

Anything with those stats would be OP.

In my view, SHF turning suck as much as bomber turning

[Image: v1zVWKX.png]
DHC Discord
Reply  
Offline Prysin
03-28-2011, 08:37 AM,
#34
Apex Predator
Posts: 3,101
Threads: 165
Joined: Jul 2009

' Wrote:2 fighter torp slots would make it nearly useless against heavies. And, thus, just make it a stupid excuse for a fighter

nah, a 19k core with 2 slots for fighter stuff???

ok too OP for OC since we would use inferno + razor, which is total destruction of anything that flies.


ID SAY, WE MAKE SOME MODELS FOR MORE HYBRID FIGHTERS LIKE BULLDOG AND GLADIATOR

[Image: v1zVWKX.png]
DHC Discord
Reply  
Offline SeaFalcon
03-28-2011, 09:36 AM,
#35
Member
Posts: 3,044
Threads: 101
Joined: Aug 2009

Bombers already insane weaponry compared to cap ships damage for example the mortar.

Such power cores an small ships are rather impossible.
Even the current power cores are rather impossible.

Even though light bombers will be rather useless
We will have more people Q_Q about fighters not being able to defend caps.
Current Light bombers like the roc, bhg bomber agile enough to service very well in most fights.

Even though I love bombers and light fighters
This will just be a bit to much of the good stuff.

________________________________________________________

about the hybride fighters
When I made a topic once about a new one with a Fighter torp + cd people were liking it, however mods said bulldog and gladie were unique and will be unique.

So I guess it will not have so much effect,
or the mods suddenly changed their mind?
Reply  
Offline Implosion
03-28-2011, 10:05 AM,
#36
Armed to the Teeth
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 166
Joined: Nov 2008

If there was such class available in the moment,that would be my choice for all of my chars.
That said,it's OP.

[Image: Implosion90.gif]
| [Youtube Channel] | [Daniels] [X] [X]  | [Jessica Scarlet] |
  Reply  
Offline Gforce
03-28-2011, 10:47 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-28-2011, 10:49 AM by Gforce.)
#37
Member
Posts: 135
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2008

I just did a few numbers for the powercore stats. It'll charge enough for a SNAC in 24.783 seconds. In that time a Battleship shield will recharge 118 959 units. The SNAC does 66 000 units of shield damage so that means 2 of these, firing at exactly the right second would only take 13 040 from the shield. If the pilots screw up by 3 seconds, that work is lost. Also, at that rate it would take 35 hits of the SNAC from each ship to kill the Battleships shield. That would take 14.5 minutes to achieve.

Add in the hull of the Battleship, the shield restoring, the low armour of the bombers and the fact they can only carry a handful of bots, I'd say the few lucky hits a Battleship gets on a bomber every now and then would be enough to take them out long before they've done any heavy damage.

And if your able to get 5-6 of these on a single loan Battleship, then it deserves to die.

Edit: if I got my numbers wrong, feel free to correct me.
Reply  
Offline SeaFalcon
03-28-2011, 10:52 AM,
#38
Member
Posts: 3,044
Threads: 101
Joined: Aug 2009

' Wrote:I just did a few numbers for the powercore stats. It'll charge enough for a SNAC in 24.783 seconds. In that time a Battleship shield will recharge 118 959 units. The SNAC does 66 000 units of shield damage so that means 2 of these, firing at exactly the right second would only take 13 040 from the shield. If the pilots screw up by 3 seconds, that work is lost. Also, at that rate it would take 35 hits of the SNAC from each ship to kill the Battleships shield. That would take 14.5 minutes to achieve.

Add in the hull of the Battleship, the shield restoring, the low armour of the bombers and the fact they can only carry a handful of bots, I'd say the few lucky hits a Battleship gets on a bomber every now and then would be enough to take them out long before they've done any heavy damage.

And if your able to get 5-6 of these on a single loan Battleship, then it deserves to die.

Edit: if I got my numbers wrong, feel free to correct me.

So why do people bother making a bomber which isn't good against capitals?
IMO it makes no sense.
Reply  
Offline Gforce
03-28-2011, 10:58 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-28-2011, 10:59 AM by Gforce.)
#39
Member
Posts: 135
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2008

Isn't good? In numbers, that thing would be a nightmare if you were the targeted cap, you'd be getting hits all over from ships that are harder to hit than a normal bomber. That being said, they slip up and get caught in a chain fire or solaris spray or whatever, they're dead. You couldn't grab a buddy and go cap hunting in these. They're a gamblers ship. You win, you kill a cap in a tiny ass bomber, you screw up, you die.

In RP terms, I'd say these would be a deep strike wing. Say 5 of these bombers go in, blow up a cap, return to the allied fleet. They'd be the perfect thing for a carrier.
Reply  
Offline Hielor
03-28-2011, 11:40 AM,
#40
Member
Posts: 1,900
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2011

' Wrote:This idea was conceived more to fill the gap of a ship COMPLETELY dedicated to attacking heavier vessels, rather than the jack-of-all-trades vessels that most bombers are.
Gforce has some math above, but with that wimpy powercore, this thing would be nigh-useless against larger vessels...
Reply  
Pages (7): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode