EVE Search - Sticky:Existing destroyer rebalancing for winter

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:Existing destroyer rebalancing for winter

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Reply to Topic \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 868	Posted - 2012.08.09 11:54:00 - [1] - Quote Hello folks, While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic. This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far. As always, constructive comments are welcome. Suggested changes are mentioned below: COERCER: One medium slot is highly impractical for any kind of solo or even small gang fit and has been changed. Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below. Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1) Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 650 (+25) / 800 (+18) / 750 (+20) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 565 (+3) / 375 s / 1.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6 Sensor strength: 10 Radar Signature radius: 83 CORMORANT: Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted. Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1) Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 168 CPU (-15) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (+18) / 650 (+25) / 700 (+23) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 465 (-35) / 310 s (-23) / 1.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7 Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric Signature radius: 86 (-4) CATALYST: Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants. Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+23) / 750 (+20) / 800 (+18) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 500 (+31) / 335 s (+22.5) / 1.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric Signature radius: 90 (+4) THRASHER: Slot layout untouched. Significantly reduced capacitor to make it consistent with other Minmatar vessels (cap/s stays the same though). Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+20) / 700 (+23) / 650 (+25) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 355 (-102.5) / 225 s (-66.6) / 1.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6 Sensor strength: 9 Ladar Signature radius: 75 MODULES: The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles. All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 868	Posted - 2012.08.09 12:47:00 - [2] - Quote Madner Kami wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: COERCER: Signature radius: 83 CORMORANT: Signature radius: 86 (-4) CATALYST: Signature radius: 90 (+4) THRASHER: Signature radius: 75 Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before? Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update. Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious. Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 868	Posted - 2012.08.09 13:34:00 - [3] - Quote Ok fixed the main post: HP, signature radius and capacitor were incorrect before. That's what I get for using tons of spreadsheets and mixing new ones with older, pre-Crucible data.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 870	Posted - 2012.08.09 13:52:00 - [4] - Quote Jarvin Xadi wrote: Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking. We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size.


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 924	Posted - 2012.08.09 16:07:00 - [5] - Quote These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 877	Posted - 2012.08.10 10:16:00 - [6] - Quote Fixed typos with missile explosion radius and wrong CPU numbers on the Cormorant.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 898	Posted - 2012.08.20 17:05:00 - [7] - Quote Hey folks, Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply. We are mostly fine with the changes so far - we may change the slot layout back on the Cormorant if 4 meds are preferred, but there is no large incoming buff to be expected on the destroyer class itself as we feel they are faring quite well since the last set of buffs during Crucible. Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role. The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts. The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself. We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ. Regarding the questions about possibly introducing missiles and drones for destroyers, we agree, that is why both these weapon systems will be introduced with the new four destroyer hulls also coming for Winter. More information on this blog. It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 1143	Posted - 2012.09.20 10:46:00 - [8] - Quote ColdCutz wrote: Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests. Been busy designing the new ore frigate and destroyers. We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot. The Catalyst and Cormorant changes are still quite up in the air. We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet. We'll definitely have some iteration time on destroyers, this class is tricky to balance, especially with the new hulls coming out.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 1307	Posted - 2012.10.05 16:20:00 - [9] - Quote You wish is my command After some more internal and external play testings, we are fairly happy with existing destroyers, except for the Catalyst, as mentioned in the new destroyer balancing thread. We want to increase the fittings on it so it is able to mount neutron blasters, or even have a hope to fit 150mm railguns (with fitting implants / rigs). However, by doing so we are removing its tiny dronebay to make its role more focused on turrets and keep a clear distinction with the new Gallente drone destroyer. Powergrid increased from 60 to 70, CPU increased from 170 to 178 Drone bay and bandwidth removed Doing so approximately keeps the same damage potential as before, except you have slightly more range as using neutrons instead of ions. It also means you don't have to rely on a destructible damage source (light drone) to compensate for your downgraded guns. Also, we want to reduce mass on existing destroyers to make them more noticeable against the new hulls. Changes are the most important for the ships that needed the most, while the thrasher was slightly tuned down. For instance, we estimate around 200m/s to be gained on MWD speeds for a Catalyst. Coercer: mass decreased from 1665000 to 1650000, agility increased from 2.75 to 2.77 to keep close align time Cormorant: mass decreased from 1892000 to 1700000, agility increased from 2.5 to 2.78 to keep close align time Catalyst: mass decreased from 1761000 to 1550000, agility increased from 2.45 to 2.76 to keep close align time Thrasher: mass increased from 1542000 to 1600000, agility decreased from 2.96 to 2.8 to keep close align time We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 1351	Posted - 2012.12.04 10:40:00 - [10] - Quote Unsticking, let's make some space for future threads.



	Reply to Topic

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.