Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Religous Reclaimer47
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 17:30:00 -
[31]
Best IDea so far is From Storm,
Nightmare/Marauder them out and Halve the number of guns with a 100% DMG Bonus and redistro the other slots you save, leaving 1-2 utility Hi`s
Dont ruin Destroyers by making them salvagers lol
If they must make a T2 make them a SuperCap Attacker/Bomber Like a Anti Fighter Bomber...YARRR
|
Daergaar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 20:08:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Daergaar on 10/09/2010 20:09:55 I really like the "mini Marauder" idea.
In that role, the layout would be like this:
->8 high slots (with 6 turret/launcher hardpoints). Remove ROF penalty. 2 of the slots would be utility slots (meant for a salvager and tractor).
-> +1 mid or low slots (ie: Comorant could use a 2nd low for example). Increase cargohold.
-> Ship bonuses for weapon range and resists (+5% per level) and role bonus for tractor beam range and velocity. No bonus damage since damage should stay close to currently (which it would with 2 less guns but no RoF penalty).
|
Exploited Engineer
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 20:15:00 -
[33]
Missiles! I want missiles on my Cormorant. What's a better anti-frig weapon than a bunch of eight light missile launchers?
|
Kail Storm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 20:42:00 -
[34]
Yea Daeg thats exactly what my IDea was,
Mini Maraudr, except I say give 2 extra low/mid slots. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
|
Schalac
Caldari Apocalypse Reign
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 21:02:00 -
[35]
Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role? SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN |
Daergaar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:00:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Schalac Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role?
Because a bunch of other ship types or specific ships usurp that role, and frigates aren't too common in big fleets.
It's like other ships are saying, "Anything you can do, I can do better! I can do anything better than you!" to the Destroyer class as a whole.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 00:25:00 -
[37]
I thought about it some more today. Destroyers should have three roles:
1. PvP - they lack a defined role in PvP that some other ship class cannot do better. I propose giving them one. 2. PvE - Level 1 and Level 2 missions - the problem is they are too hard to fit for most new players. 3. Salvaging - they currently excel at this role
Here is what I think is needed:
1. Leave them with lots of gun slots. I don't like the idea of mini-marauders. The 7-8 gun configurations look cool. The high ammo, cost, and cap usage of more guns helps keep them from being overpowered (which is necessary if my biggest change was implemented). The ROF penalty has to stay. It also helps with the salvaging role to have more high slots, which I think is an important tertiary role for them.
2. As I suggested above, give them lots more fitting room. This makes them easier for new players to use effectively - and makes them more effective at PvP. Also, add one mid to Amarr and Gallente. Add one low to Caldari and Minmatar.
3. Give them the ability to fit a new module. This module would be called the Anti-Cloaking Pulse Emitter. It could only be fitted on Destroyer class ships. It would be a mid or high slot module (not sure which). It would have an area of effect approximately 15-30 km (not sure what is balanced). It could be used in any security status space, but it would trigger Concord if it hits a cloaked neutral in high sec. When activated, it would send out a pulse that deactivated all cloaks within its area of effect. The effect lasts for 15 seconds. It would take a lot of cap to use the module (e.g. takes maxed skills ship with no cap mods from 100% to 35%). The module could only be reactivated at 75% cap. During the cycle time of the module, the ship using it cannot move (like a cyno ship). The module also takes LO, strontium or some other fuel to activate it. The ship has a fuel bay.
This gives fleets some defense against Stealth Bombers and Cov Ops warp-in ships. It gives gangs a way to catch cloaked haulers at gates. --- This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 06:43:00 -
[38]
Originally by: FT Diomedes I thought about it some more today. Destroyers should have three roles:...
Why three? The T2 version (Interdictors) has one role/purpose - bubbling. Destroyers main problem is that they don't really excel at any one thing, frigate popping quickly becomes destroyer popping if any other ship is present.
Destroyers already work beautifully in PvP. - They munch most frigs and get stomped by bigger fish. - They have near cruiser level damage and can have the tanks of a damage fitted AF.
The visuals are probably not going to change at all if a Marauder gun scheme is used, the latest iterations (ie. faction ships) look like porcupines even if they only have a few guns - and with frigate guns costing 500k-1M a pop ammo cost can hardly be factored in as a balancing element (my DLP Coercer costs 15-16M!).
Increasing fittings does two things: Introduce ludicrously oversized tanks thus disturbing the fragile small-ship balance and bleed the new player dry of ISK (expensive to fit remember).
By increasing speed slightly and perhaps reducing signatures they become extremely viable in all manner of engagements .. If we want them in fleet scenarios to clear tackle then perhaps a 2/3rds Interceptor bonus (-10% MWD sig bloom/level) to increase their lifespan when zooming around.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 15:55:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Fistme on 11/09/2010 15:56:14 I think that there are lots of good ideas being tossed around in this thread. The idea that i like the most so far is to give destroyers a reduction to fitting probe launchers. I don't think that this simple change will be enough overall to reballence destroyers so I would like to see either a fitting increase (both a slot and grid/cpu) for each ship or a reduction to sig/mass to allow for more survivablity. I also think that the catalyst should be able to field 10m3 with a 20m3 bay of drones giving it a unique roll that none of the other destroyers can fill.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 16:15:00 -
[40]
some things i would change about destroyers 1- GET RID OF THE -25% ROF PENALTY
2- boost the catalyst fitting so it can fit neutron blaster + 200mm plate or ion blaster + 400mm plate with a mwd. change the 50% optimal bonus to a 50% falloff bonus 3- move 1 low of the coercer to a mid adjust fitting again for tackle mwd full rack of guns + some sort of a tank. 4- move 1 mid of the cormorant to a low change the 10% optimal per level to a 5% damage per level, enough grid to fit 150mm rails + mwd + other mods sensor booster DC mfs etc no need the grid for the tank since its a sniper anyway 5- give the trasher the grid to fit 280mm+ mwd+ other non tank mod TE TC gyro sebo etc, change the 50% optimal bonus to a 50% falloff bonus.
to consider after this a 25% boost to the base speed of all the destroyer or a sig radius decrease on all the destroyer.
|
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 16:26:00 -
[41]
Introduce another tier of destroyer. 1-minmatar destroyer with 4/4 split weapons and 7,5% rof bonus to both missile and guns, 15mb of drones, slot layout 8-3-2. 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2. 3-gallente destroyer 5 turrets and 25mb of drones 5% to hybrid damage 10% to drone speed per level slot layout 6-3-3 no launchers. 4-amarr destroyer 7 turret, 5% damage and 5% resist bonus, slot layout 8-2-3
but the main point is new shiny hull in game
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 18:46:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Schalac Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role?
I want what this guy has been smoking.
|
Exploited Engineer
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 20:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: 1600 RT 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2.
I want one, where do I send the ISK?
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 20:47:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Henri Rearden on 11/09/2010 20:48:53 I think tending towards less change than more is probably a good policy. There seem to be pretty universal complaints about destroyers - they lack a slot (mid or low, depending) and they need some fitting love without allowing crazy tanks. What an obvious solution! Add the appropriate slots and give a weapon fitting bonus. That way they'll retain the high-end frigate tank, pick up some dps/range for high sp players and make it possible for noobs to fit them, and be able to universally fit a scram/distruptor. If it were me, I would change things as others have suggested here and there, like giving the caldari destroyer bonuses/stats which allow it to fit more standard missile launchers, etc. but that's not necessary to change the class. I think a mild speed bump and slight reduction in sig radius (not too much) would make them very handy, but probably not OP.
EDIT: Oh yeah, give the Thrasher and Catalyst bonuses to falloff rather than optimal.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 23:42:00 -
[45]
Taking away bonuses to optimal takes away the long range option, which is nice for PvE and fills another role in PvP. That's why I don't mind a bonus to both optimal range AND fall-off. Makes them useable with short or long range weapons. --- This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
Irae Ragwan
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 23:47:00 -
[46]
There's no need to fix destroyers. There IS a need to fix the coercer and the commorant... A blanket buff to dessies just means better thrashers.
|
ShadoJak
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 09:04:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Daergaar think Destroyers need to be viable
a) you're just ignorant
since they're fine. It's the clueless that are the problem.
------------------------------------- Walking in stations ==> -10 standings Painting your ship ==> +10 standings |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 16:45:00 -
[48]
Originally by: 1600 RT Introduce another tier of destroyer. 1-minmatar destroyer with 4/4 split weapons and 7,5% rof bonus to both missile and guns, 15mb of drones, slot layout 8-3-2. 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2. 3-gallente destroyer 5 turrets and 25mb of drones 5% to hybrid damage 10% to drone speed per level slot layout 6-3-3 no launchers. 4-amarr destroyer 7 turret, 5% damage and 5% resist bonus, slot layout 8-2-3
but the main point is new shiny hull in game
Umm. Yes. Let's create exactly the same imbalance in the destroyer class that is already universally lamented in the BC class. That sounds like awesome purified into a delicious elixir that smells of pomegranate.
But shiny new destroyer hulls would be nice. But maybe we should try to fix the existing ones first before adding more.
A drone ship for Gallente and a -- I hate to say this -- rocket ship for Caldari would make good sense. Your proposed microphoon might sneak by as a very niche alternative to the Thrasher, but it already works quite well so meh.
But the problem always comes back to Amarr -- how exactly do you introduce another hull without obsoleting one or the other? Resists would be loltastic on a destroyer, but a pure damage bonus would pretty much mean the Coercer would never be the first choice for anything.
Or maybe I'm just rambling; I've never been a fan of the ship class as a whole in the first place.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:39:00 -
[49]
The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important.
It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings -
The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think.
|
Draku Rykenen
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:41:00 -
[50]
Destroyers (mostly the Thrasher) are awesome. They are just so specialized that it renders them outmoded in the vast majority of situations.
If you lock a frig in range it's most often game over for him though..So, do one thing very well is the story of the Destroyer in EVE.
A fairly easy fit and pump out an ~1800 damage volley from an arty thrasher leaving most frigs dead or very close in an instant. Of course you are waiting ~8 secs to fire again, so make it count or consider running.
If you want your corp mates to hate you, fit a SeBo and a tracking comp and and see how few people get in on frig kill mails, lol.
Of course, being a glass cannon, one hit wonder is all that great, but how do you boost a ship/class without OP'ing it unless you remove the specialization?
If you had better defenses (tank or speed) no frig would ever stand a chance, cruisers might even fear you at that point.
The only thing I could imagine might be viable would be to and defense via circumventable ewar, with some mild bonuses, or perhaps a small web bonus. The fit the role of "Fleet Frigate Defense" a TP bonus or web bonus seems proper.
A second idea might be a Tracking Disruptor bonus, allowing a destroyer to operate more freely within the fleet environment by reducing the threat of enemy cruisers while it does it's job of frig killing.
|
|
Verizons
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:48:00 -
[51]
To address the COST to FIT
Cut the amount of turrets in 1/2 and give the destroyers role bonus of 100% damage to their factions turret/launcher.
This will free up some extra cash since 8x Tech II can cost more than the ship itself.
Give them a 5% bonus per lvl to armor/shield resistances to address the lack of tankable fits.
Do this and you have something that stands up to assault ships but will probablys till take more damage.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 20:18:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Draku Rykenen
The only thing I could imagine might be viable would be to and defense via circumventable ewar, with some mild bonuses, or perhaps a small web bonus. The fit the role of "Fleet Frigate Defense" a TP bonus or web bonus seems proper.
Personally, I'll stick with: Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed. That's more useful than either in my book.
Quote:
A second idea might be a Tracking Disruptor bonus, allowing a destroyer to operate more freely within the fleet environment by reducing the threat of enemy cruisers while it does it's job of frig killing.
Or y'know, maybe lowering the signature radius to be nearer a frigate than a cruiser, so they're less vulnerable to cruiser guns?
|
Draku Rykenen
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 22:07:00 -
[53]
I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class.
As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards.
Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO.
|
Daergaar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 00:33:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Draku Rykenen I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class.
As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards.
Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO.
It's already good at killing frigates, but it dies way too easily to cruisers as others have said. A Destroyer should not be able to wreck cruisers, but it should be able to survive more than a few seconds.
|
Opertone
Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:13:00 -
[55]
destroyer is something like cruiser compared to battlecruiser. A high power gun boat, designed for combat purposes, but with small highly accurate long range guns.
What destroyer needs is cruiser like hit points and resistances. Basically, destroyers should be much weaker than cruisers. So one class could challenge another, only weapons that differ.
Cruisers can have E-War, Logistics, Scout/Tackle, Damage role. Destroyers only gunboat Damage role.
Destroyers must have more hitpoints than frigates, comparable to those of cruisers. Main HP aspect should be much higher than other. Cormorant should have at least 3000 hitpoints on shield while a lot less on armor 750 hps.
|
Opertone
Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:19:00 -
[56]
Originally by: James Lyrus The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important.
It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings -
The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think.
quoted for truth
Hitpoints is what destroyers need. Similar to Drake vs Caracal, a lot more aspect on shield and missiles. GUNs/shields, not much for tackle, e-war or speed.
For reference even T1 caracals may fit sensor damps, jammers, target painters to be useful before get targeted. Then it's over since caracals are paper thin.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:00:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Opertone
Originally by: James Lyrus The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important.
It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings -
The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think.
quoted for truth
Hitpoints is what destroyers need. Similar to Drake vs Caracal, a lot more aspect on shield and missiles. GUNs/shields, not much for tackle, e-war or speed.
For reference even T1 caracals may fit sensor damps, jammers, target painters to be useful before get targeted. Then it's over since caracals are paper thin.
You're underrating Caracals quite a bit there - they're actually pretty survivable if you fly them right, thanks to their really very impressive engagement ranges. I mean, 126km with heavy missiles, 60km with assault launchers? That means you can stay well clear of a lot of 'threats' - you simply don't need the kind of tank a blaster ship would.
Cormorant... can actually do quite an impressive range, but is seriously crippled by fittings at that point. And is still ... probably about as fast as a Caracal, with a lot less buffer/cap.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:16:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Draku Rykenen I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class.
As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards.
Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO.
Problem is, TDs are also pretty potent vs. frigates - a destroyer already out ranges, out tracks and outdamages frigates, and you want to give it a module that lets it cut gun ranges in half, or tracking in half?
But the problem isn't a _single_ cruiser, it's that if there are several cruisers in the field, it only takes a volley or two from one of them to pop your destroyer. That's thanks to your cruiser grade mobility/signature and frigate sized hitpoints.
On the fittings point - fittings don't need a massive boost, but I would really like to see the Cormorant able to fit 150mm rails - as it stands, it needs a fitting mod to get the rack of weapons, let along the other grid hungry mods it could really do with - like a propulsion mod for starters. MSE should require sacrificing 'top tier' weapons to fit, but as it stands ... you just can't fit 150s to a Cormorant So your 'MSE' tradeoff is whether you're fitting 125s or 75s.
That's about 89 grid with max fitting skills, which would be 72 or so base, rather than the 55 it gets currently.
|
Redoubti
Amarr Strategic Insanity
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:01:00 -
[59]
Has anyone tried using them as a capital/battleship escort against heavy drones and fighters?
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari Chaotic Tranquility
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:26:00 -
[60]
Lower sig raduis might be kool, but you still wouldnt use them in fleets (T1 frigate or interceptor would be better for that). Anyways, those who dont use them now, still wont use them, even if they did have a reduced sig.
Destroyers seem to be able to theyre jobs, as they are now.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |