Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Quontor Zarrkos
Zervas Aeronautics WHY so Seri0Us
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:22:00 -
[121] - Quote
I really like your idea to have some counter to 'afk cloakers' who just go camp systems forever. It's a bit farfetched though. maybe we just need some special kind of probes who can detect cloaked ships. (which would be easier the longer the cloak stays active). |
Krall Hoar
TunDraGon
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
- 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: 62
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), 200 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
- 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: 65 (-3)
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) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
- 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: 68 (+3)
THRASHER: Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
- 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: 56
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 radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I really, really, really hope this is not the main topic of the winter expansion. Maybe I am just greedy, but I think there should be more within an expansion than just balancing/redoing of existing stuff, especially if the last expansion was the same (yes the new missiles are great, but they didn't really effect the game and all the other stuff is not really effecting my low sec pirate life. [and yes I hope you won't do that crap with the sentry guns in low sec]). There needs to be some hand-tight within next epansion. OK I know you are working on incarna, fine with that. but I would like to get something real in the next expansion. Thats it, my opinion shared |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Marquie-X Corp Ewoks
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:27:00 -
[123] - Quote
Quontor Zarrkos wrote:I really like your idea to have some counter to 'afk cloakers' who just go camp systems forever. It's a bit farfetched though. maybe we just need some special kind of probes who can detect cloaked ships. (which would be easier the longer the cloak stays active).
That's basically the Idea behind "Stardust". And the ideas are not spelled out by the point to a comma, since stuff like that must be tested on SiSi and not purely brained together. I just see that some slight modifications could give both sides entertainment. |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
314
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
That 15 cpu is going to hurt the cormorant. So now I have to fit a cpu rig instead of a powergrid. I guess fixing one aspect and breaking another isn't the way to go about this |
Arline Kley
Galactic Rangers
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
Not much really to say, but FINALLY the 2nd mid on the Coercer - at least now I can fly with it without having to worry about speed or the ability to stop things; I had thought about this a while back (and I haven't really had the time to go back over it recently) and i made a thread about it here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=123292&find=unread
[/grautious thread plug]
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Cheekybiatch
Dark-Rising
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:41:00 -
[126] - Quote
Honestly we need 2 set of destroyers, you don't need need to change the model just give them 2 skin colours and a slightly different name.
1) Focused on long range weapons, with 2 mids 3 lows, focused on shields, aglity. 2) Focused on Short range weapons, with 3 mids 2 lows, focused on armour, speed.
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
Projects are also still favoured over the damage spectrum they can easily do.
So just give all the destroyers the option to use missiles and their native weapon selection, 8/8. or 7/7 whatever. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:49:00 -
[127] - Quote
Cheekybiatch wrote:
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
This is very much not true. |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
470
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:53:00 -
[128] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme If you don't see a problem in 0.0 eroding into two big super-coalitions and a few hangers on in areas nobody cares about.. then you don't have brains. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 18:44:00 -
[129] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.
Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot" |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
302
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:34:00 -
[130] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time. Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot"
Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules.
That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy per shot. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
180
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:59:00 -
[131] - Quote
I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.
And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.
Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1801
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:01:00 -
[132] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.
And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.
Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky
Keep the gimp fittings on the Catalyst and give it a 25m^3 drone bay+bandwidth...
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
47
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
I'd like some explanations for the catalyst : same weapon than the cormoran, one more turret, armor like, but less PG... and the thrasher which have more PG than both of them whereas it have 7 of the easiest weapons to fit... That is a joke. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:33:00 -
[134] - Quote
---begin hijack--- Why couldn't you just come up with a similar thread for mining barges / exhumers change as it was announced? ... In other words you came up with a decent change instead of a good one. ---end hijack--- |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:49:00 -
[135] - Quote
[quote=Pinky Denmark Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky[/quote]
That drone is a godsend when completing minor FW plexes in blaster cat. |
JetCord
Dewa Brotherhood Lost Obsession
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:55:00 -
[136] - Quote
when can we test this on the test server? |
Alastanir
NOMAD. RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:59:00 -
[137] - Quote
I really like what I'm seeing here. Well done. o7 |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
503
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 21:31:00 -
[138] - Quote
I sometimes put an ECM drone in the catalyst. It's comical when it actually gets a jam. |
Lord BryanII
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 22:52:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
you guys are renaming the lazors, or you were supposed to. was a dev blog written about it. /facepalm
hope that has not just fallen off
|
Oki Riverson
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 23:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
Great changes for the Coercer! Finally I can put Destroyer skills to use...The Com should have missiles imo though. Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^ |
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 23:45:00 -
[141] - Quote
Guess I'll be forced to train small lasers... Cormorant seems like a blaster mirror of the Thrasher. Meh! to the rest of it. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:11:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
- 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: 62
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), 200 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
- 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: 65 (-3)
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) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
- 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: 68 (+3)
THRASHER: Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
- 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: 56
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 radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
These changes are very interesting since you apparently removed all the hard-points from all the destroyers... All you other rebalancing threads tell us how many turrets/launchers the ships can fit. |
Bob Niac
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:40:00 -
[143] - Quote
I admit .. I lol'ed when i saw the Thrasher was "basically unchanged." Devs must seriusly love the Matari. I <3 Logistics: Pilot of all -áT2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use. |
Cheekybiatch
Dark-Rising
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:15:00 -
[144] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Cheekybiatch wrote:
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
This is very much not true.
I MAKE LOUD NOISES AND STATEMENTS WITHOUT BACKUP.
But please randomly quote and then ignore the other threads about how much the thrasher is better suited to PVP, which it is and needs to be addressed, not as a issue of balance more as an issue of these other ships need to function better in a PVP enviroment.
Yes the mid and low slot shuffle is great but it doesn't address the key issue of thrasher will always be more desirable than the others, what could be changed to fix that.
You know hence the other parts in my thread if read them. |
J Random
L F C Ethereal Dawn
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:27:00 -
[145] - Quote
I'm still trying to figure out the intent here as it drives the ship design.
What I keep seeing on the BBS here is folk want them to effectively be low-end new tier3 BC's but for frigates, i.e. all alpha gank, no tank. In that case, 1 mid is fine, up the scan res so you can actually lock and shoot a frigate before it warps.
That's really the only role I can see here. Chasing somebody down is a interceptors job and straight out brawling would be an assault frigate (which owns dessies).
Would like to see, instead of cookie cutter with each races having the same thing other than model (i.e. the new tier3 bc's) is maybe adopting them to racial play style. Make the minnie dessie more of a brawler (with buffer for the gate guns), the amarr more alpha fit, the caldari and gallant more tacklish (given the missile/drone damage delay).
What I DON'T want is what I'm seeing with the frigates is dps is creep where we make everything do triple dps and give it triple tank just so folk can say "wow I do 10K dps and have a 5M tank". Hitting for 2 dps is the same as 800 dps is you quit tank creeping. I also don't want to get into the situation, like with the AF's and Tech 3's, where they own the next level or two up the totem pole. The new AF's are going toe-to-toe with T1 cruisers and Tech3's with BS's .. that is wrong as it's going to force you to keep balancing everything up which is the doom of the vast majority of long lived paper-based games, i.e.each new sourcebook triples the damage. |
Jett0
Surface Warfare Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:35:00 -
[146] - Quote
As an Amarr pilot, thank you.
By the way, the medium/light laser confusion gave me a random, terrible idea:
What if, in addition to range bonuses to light guns, destroyers had small fitting bonuses to mediums? Not on par with t3 battlecruisers, but something that gives a range between a full set of lights vs. a half set of mediums with other stuff in high slots. Maybe not this idea exactly, but something to shake up the fitting possibilities. Occasionally plays sober |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 02:18:00 -
[147] - Quote
Nvm... it's been addressed |
Selnix
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 02:40:00 -
[148] - Quote
Oki Riverson wrote: Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^
This please! |
iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
37
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 06:57:00 -
[149] - Quote
Unfortunately some of us don't give a damn about (T1) destroyers. I haven't flown one in the last 3 years and don't intend to ever in the future.
I know why these changes are necessary: You think DUST players will want decent ships within the first 30 seconds of starting EVE, something they can get into a fight with and hope to kill something. While I can see why you want to satisfy them, have you considered that any DUST player that lacks the patience to wait a few weeks to get into decent ship won't become a long term EVE subscriber anyway?
I think you are spending too much time on balancing the beginner ships at the expense of leaving serious gameplay issues that affect older players completely unfixed. In particular, I would rather see a post about giving supercaps proper roles and abilities than about adding 6 CPU to a destroyer. Track your wealth with EVE Stats: https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |
Keith Arika
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 08:22:00 -
[150] - Quote
So catalyst is still worst of them, all seem to have 3 mid slots, and cat has drone bay, maybe it should be considered to give him some bonus to speed or to web drones, so lack of middle slot would be at least a bit less painful? If it should be anti-frig boat, it can't do its role unless it has proper tackling abilities. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |