Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
164
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:00:00 -
[331] - Quote
We have no idea what is going on in the minds of those who created these, this thread has created a lot of rage and disappointment. As has been said many times throught the thread, these need to be scrapped and started over. Ideas for Dorne Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 9/21/12 |
Alara IonStorm
3204
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:21:00 -
[332] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:You made the first comparison I guess I was first kind of comparing them to the already existing Destroyers, but that comparison really, really goes without saying. You should not make that mistake again, thier is only one existing destroyer line currently, the next one does not have to follow said pattern.
Ares Desideratus wrote: How is it unique? Sentinel / Cruor want a word? It differs from those in ways, but still is really similar, it's also got traits of the Vengeance in it, the thing is, though, it will be uber slow and have no tank, which is not good.
Unique to the Destroyer class and to the role of its partners.
Ares Desideratus wrote: Oh come one, you don't have to relate Destroyers to real life, but basic common sense allows that Destroyers would be built to Destroy things.
Which a Neut Bonus will help it do.
Ares Desideratus wrote: again, a role that should probably be left for EAFs. But there's another problem; whichever role they choose for these new Destroyers, don't you think they should be uniform together? If Amarr gets a bonus to neuts, Minmatar gets a bonus to webs? Yeah? No? Ah... the current layout for these new Destroyers is very higgly piggly. You've got an Amarr wanna-be Sentinel, an OP-Drake-esque Caldari, a mediocre mixed-weapons system Gallente, and a Minmatar one that for some reason is a dedicated missile platform with an Interceptor signature radius bonus?
No it should not be left to one other type of ship and it is fine if they are a mash-up, uniqueness is not a bad thing. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:40:00 -
[333] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Doddy wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Wait so why do the rest of the destros get two damage bonuses, but the amarr one gets a neut bonus? How does it not completely just replace the crucifier? I hope you mean sentinel.... Anyway considering ishkur is a frig murderer even without a drone damage bonus i think you seriously underestimate drones. No, I've used them constantly, and then they get left at gates, or blown up, or the spend 90% of the fight chasing a frigate that is barely moving but won't drop out of their MWD orbit so they can actually track/shoot the stupid thing. If drones could produce reliable, delayed DPS like missiles do, they would be much more viable, as is, they are ridiculous.
I fly a Gila .... It consistantly outdamages my Cerberus, by a huge margin.
The only advantage the Cerberus has is it's 170km range ... and to make use of that requires boosting. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:44:00 -
[334] - Quote
I actually like the idea of a support destroyer, ewar destroyer and 2 attack destroyers. Glass cannons designed to kill Frigates. but haveing troubles with destroyer counterparts, and not the survivability to last in a fight against cruisers and up. Continuation of the lines that started in frigates but then resized for destroyers. In this respect, i think ccp should really sit down and look at its future for the development of Destroyers, as well as some announced modules. Does ccp envision destroyers like for example the ones below?
Ideas:
Support Destroyer: Link capabilities, Mediocre speed / dps
Ewar Destroyer: No tank what so ever: Power grid for weapons, and ewar. A penalty to fitting requirements for shield / armor extenders, resistance mods (includeing DCU), and (remote) repair modules so you can only fit weapons, ewar and dps mods. Mediocre speed / dps
Attack destroyers: Type A: Designed for short range high dps, fastest of the destroyers, slower then a combat frig Tybe B: Designed for mid - long range moderate dps, Mediocre speed
TII Variants:
Interdictors (Attack destroyer) As they are now, with minor rebalancing issues
Orbital Bombardment (Attack Destroyer) For Dust synergy
Troop Transport (Support Destroyer) For Dust Synergy
Science Vessal (Ewar Destroyer) Wormhole specialist
If This is a road CCP can see itself in the future this raises a question for the amarr destroyer. Will its neuting bonus not conflict with any future destroyer? Will some of the destroyers not gain an increadible tactical advantage, if for instance the micro jump drive becomes a reality?
So far i'm likeing what i'm seeing. I have a few concerns with the current wich i cannot predict on paper alone. This will have to be tested, and quite frankly, i don't think the test server population and mass tests will reveal all possible undesirable effects. The amarr one: Medium neut range on a small neutralizer with the option to go autocannon / rocket suplement. Hurricane like issues but then on destroyer scale? The Caldari one: Is the volley damage, combined with the high scan res, and low align time a problem for hit and run tactics with eg a critical mass destroyer fleet? The Gallente one: With Tristan and Catalysts availability, how can this ship be designed so that all 3 will be used? The Minmitar one: Will the MWD sig radius penalty affect any use of current assault frigates / interceptors?
CCP don't get me wrong, i like these new destroyers and what i see so far will open up a lot more intresting options to explore. As will all the new redesigning. Unfortunatly i don't think we actually will be able to see there full impact till they go live.
I know one thing though. These things will change a lot of the current small gang tactics |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
312
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 00:10:00 -
[335] - Quote
Let's see...Fox Four trashes drones as a PvE platform, then Yitterbium increases drone damage, so drones may survive as a PvP tool. Of course, the Sentinel is utterly useless now that a T1 destroyer supplants all of the Sentinel's effective bonuses.
Truly another well thought-out release by a dev. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
643
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 01:17:00 -
[336] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:[...] CALDARI DESTROYER:Missiles, missiles, missiles, missiles, that's what this hull is all about. It spams missiles a quite a long range, and boasts improved explosion velocity to catch those pesky annoying little orbiting frigates. Ship bonuses:+5% to rocket and light missile kinetic damage per level +10% to rocket and light missile explosion velocity per level Role bonus:+50% to rocket and light missile velocity Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L, 8 launchers Fittings: 45 PWG, 210 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 950 / 750 / 750 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 500 / 320s / 1.56s Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 / 2.5 / 1900000 / 4.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 475 / 7 Sensor strength: 12 gravimetric Signature radius: 69 Cargo capacity: 450 [...] MINMATAR DESTROYER:This ship is unique among all Destroyers as it has a bonus that improves survivability - it is designed to zip around in the battlefield at high velocities while spewing missiles. As a downside however it's less efficient at hitting fast moving targets at greater ranges than the Caldari hull is. Ship bonuses:+5% to rocket and light missile explosion damage per level 15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty per level Role bonus:+50% to rocket and light missile velocity Slot layout: 7 H, 3 M, 3 L, 7 launchers Fittings: 48 PWG, 200 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 850 / 800 / 800 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 450 / 290s / 1.55s Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 / 2.89 / 1600000 / 4.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 550 / 6 Sensor strength: 9 ladar Signature radius: 60 Cargo capacity: 400 MODULE CHANGES:Balancing these ships made us realize some further tweaks were needed on some modules to make these destroyers, and as an extend, some other ships / setups more useful. * All light missile launcher fittings: CPU reduced by 4, PWG reduced by 2 * Drone Damage Amplifier I: CPU increased from 27 to 30, drone damage increased from 15 to 16% * Drone Damage Amplifier II: CPU reduced from 32 to 30, drone damage increased from 19 to 23% [/list] Please remember all of this still is working progress (especially on the fittings - we're aware that both the Amarr and Gallente variations have exact CPU / PWG ) and up to change.
[/Me giggles madly], especially at the DDA II buff.
I can almost --almost-- forgive the utterly unnecessary abomination of the HM nerf for this.
Please name either the Cladari or Minmatar one Serval, thank you.
Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 01:44:00 -
[337] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Recoil IV wrote:name for the caldari destroyer : Goliath I like your style! moar dragon names please: There is already the drake and the wyvern, as well as the worm, the chimaera, leviathan, and naga, but we could have the amphitere, ouroboros, hydra, amphisbaena, gargoyle, serpent, bakunawa, yilbegan, zmaj, cuelebre, vritra, ryu, scultone, dragua, zilant, ejderha, orochi, and the python as well, and likely more.
i just realised im not a nerd |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
643
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 01:48:00 -
[338] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Isn't the caldari one just going to kill any frigate instantly within 60km?
Christ:
They haven't even officially introduced it yet, and here come the whinebears screaming for a nerf to another ranged missile boat.
You twats just got what you wanted recently, be satisfied with that, and STFU.
For once.
For ****'s sakes...
Names, by the way:
Minmatar -- Serratos (doesn't really mean anything, just a play on "serrated" and I thought sounded cool) Caldari -- Serval (a type of African wildcat, basically a smaller version of the RL Caracal ) Gallente -- Hecate (Hek-AH-Tay, Greek Goddess of the Underworld) Amarr -- Drakul (for the cap-warfare part, 'natch) Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
2ofSpades
Medic.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:01:00 -
[339] - Quote
The amarr doesnt stand a chance to catch anything to even put its useless 12km neuts on. Whatever is kiting it the drones wont be able to catch. I really dont like that its a version of an ewar frig. This ship doesnt stand a chance on its own and can only provide fleet support. Maybe something flies into the range of this ships and stays there long enough to be neuted with the minimal tackle 2 mid slots can fit. . That is pretty much the only situation this ship will come out alive. Im guessing well fit it can only neut 250gj every 6secs and that is close to max which is not much at all.
I think the bonuses should be reworked a little and the best choice is to replace the cap recharge role bonus with a drone velocity bonus and 40% on the energy range bonus too. Most of the time if you manage your cap well the target will be out of cap before you will. Bump up the speed on the amarr and gallente by 5m/s each.
Also, DED neuts would be nice too. |
David Zahavi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:05:00 -
[340] - Quote
The Amarr is wayyyyy too skill intensive, requires gunnery skills, missile skills AND drone skills to fly well.
Why split missiles and gunnery skills on a destroyer? Especially as you take it away from frigates like the Tristan, AND the ship is focused towards drones? |
|
Griffin Omanid
IntersteIIar Moneymakers
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:52:00 -
[341] - Quote
The Amarr Destroyer should maybe get another bonus then EWAR. Ok, it is now something between Crucifier and Arbitrator, but in Comparison to the other new destroyer it totally looses to their range. The ones from Caldari and Minmatar keep their distance slightliy above 45 km, and spam missiles. And the Gallenteen one will also try to stay out of range while using rails and maybe remote dampers. This way the three destroyer maybe able to kill the amarr detroyer without getting hit, and that may be to overpowered.
If you really want to make the Amarr destroyer a EWAR destroyer and don-Št want to give him any turret bonus, I think a Tracking Disruptor bonus would be mor usefull, cause this way they could have a chance against the other three. Also with the winter upgrades for missiles and TD.
And maybe you can also give the Gallente destroyer a Sensor damping and/or propulsion jamming bonus. This way it would also be a usefull EWAR destroyer. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 03:00:00 -
[342] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:The Amarr is wayyyyy too skill intensive, requires gunnery skills, missile skills AND drone skills to fly well.
Why split missiles and gunnery skills on a destroyer? Especially as you take it away from frigates like the Tristan, AND the ship is focused towards drones?
You're not forced to fly with both turrets and missiles on the Amarr destroyer. The way I see it alot of people will likely be running launchers and neuts due to launchers not having any capacitor impact.
Regardless, seeing as the slot layout on the Caldari one continues to in my mind be utter balls, I think I'll spend most of my time in the Amarr one. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 03:43:00 -
[343] - Quote
Any chance the Amarr one can get 4 turrets and 4 launchers. That way with the grid and bonuses we can fit a couple neuts or nos and just one unbonused weapon system.
Also so now we have cap bonuses on ships without guns? |
Lisa Heyes
Cythraul Gyrru
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:22:00 -
[344] - Quote
Why not give these ships a difrent role more in line of the stealth bombers and tier 3bcs started whit a smaller ship whit oversized weapons.
The new dessies get like the SB torps or capital torps and a t2 version can get capital torps whit a covert cloke.
So new ships that have a new role and that can be deadly if used right. T1 ship is a cap killer that gives lower skilled chars a chanse to get back on capital using pirates. T2 version is a bigger version of the SB. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
607
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:26:00 -
[345] - Quote
Some Math on Gallente:
Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants High: 125mm II x 8 Mid: Named MWD Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router Hybrid Burst Ionic Field Projector
With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.
For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!
Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:
Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy. |
Deornoth Drake
Cybermana
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 05:11:00 -
[346] - Quote
Deornoth Drake wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The new amarr ship is going to be a better drone boat than the gallente one The new minmatar ship is going to be a better missile boat than the caldari one. CCP removes the single damage bonus on one ship, just to grant it on another ship! Why not just give that damange bonus for all damage types, like you do it for the minmatar one. edit: I just compared those two ships together, not all four Have to change the content in here:
After planning to remove the single damage type bonus on the caracal, CCP grants it again to frigates (caldari and minmatar). How about changing that bonus into something more general like you did it with the caracal?
Single damage type bonus is not bad however there should be one ship for each damage type then, see stealth bombers. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 07:16:00 -
[347] - Quote
Quote:Zarnak Wulf Posted: 2012.09.30 04:26
Some Math on Gallente:
Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants High: 125mm II x 8 Mid: Named MWD Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router Hybrid Burst Ionic Field Projector
With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.
For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!
Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:
Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy.
Aha. And many members here think the caldari dessie with approx 160dps and missile travel time is overpowered? Seems that the balancing is already quite good. I suppose the minnie dessie will be a very nasty hard to kill rocket boat, gal seems okay too, amar is fine and caldari is..... very special but probably okay. With about 8seconds flight time at max range it wont probably never alpha a frig (like Thrashers do) at max range because it will have enough time to jump away but it is okay because the damage also works well at close range. |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 08:08:00 -
[348] - Quote
I was actually hoping the gallente destroyer would be like a mini Myrmidon being designed to fly drones a size class up (The Myrm has 75 bandwidth so can field 3 heavy drones). in this case I was hoping/expecting the Gallente destroyer would have 30-40 bandwidth.
Eh. whatev. I might still get me one. Definitely getting me one of those Caldari UBoats |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:27:00 -
[349] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Some Math on Gallente:
Current Rail Catalyst - Absolute Gank sans implants High: 125mm II x 8 Mid: Named MWD Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router Hybrid Burst Ionic Field Projector
With Faction Antimatter and it's one hobgoblin this lovely boat spits out 381 DPS at 11.6 km optimal with 12.2 km of falloff. With Faction Lead it does 261 DPS at 23.3 km optimal. It does not have a point. I personally use implants that allow me to get to 13km optimal and 418 DPS with Faction Antimatter. You don't need no stinkin' point when you're throwing alphas of 609 downstream every 1.53 seconds.
For giggles I put together a new Gallente Destroyer with as exact a fit as the one above. 125mm II x 5 for effective turrets. The lows exactly as they are above. The rigs as well. Since damage is delayed the new Destroyer will absolutely need a point and web. It's lock range is naturally 15km longer then the Catalyst's so a sensor booster isn't neccesary. Another thing I noticed is that the boat doesn't need the ancillary current router. It has 20 PG left over before looking at the two utility high slots. It is, however, bone dry on CPU grid. I would need implants AND an overclock rig or two to fit those two empty high slots. And of course - Hobgoblin II's!
Anyways, I would get 396 DPS at the 11.6km mentioned above and 306 DPS at the 23km range - sans implants. In addition - uhm, web?! It makes kiting much harder for the other guy. This ship is nowhere close to being as bad as people are making it out to be. To summarize my earlier statements:
Kill the damage bonus. Convert one of the utility slots to a fifth turret to compensate for the above bonus kill. Add a tracking bonus to make the rails more effective. Give the Catalyst a double falloff bonus rather then an optimal and falloff bonus. This creates synergy between not only the old and the new but also between the corm and the cat. Double optimal vs. double falloff. And the rail Catalyst is still too close in nature to the new destroyer for comfort. Make it a pure blaster boat. I also would not mind taking the sixth utility high and moving it to a low. A DC would make it tank a bit more - neccesary as a large part of it's DPS is delayed. Lastly , Match the Catalyst's 170 CPU grid and I'd be very happy.
now make a proper catalyst fit... [Catalyst, Catalyst P2 - Brawler] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Small Hybrid Ambit Extension I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Hobgoblin II x1
506 dps and 1800ms^-1 before overheats. The new gallente dessies role as a dps boat is more than covered by the catalyst. if its meant to be a ranged drone boat, then lose the rails and improve the drones a smidge. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:28:00 -
[350] - Quote
The gallente destroyer is not bad on its own. It's just that it have two strange utility slots (gallente hull don't have those most of the time, and when they have one, they very often lack cpu to use them), and it is very close from the amarr one. The amarr destroyer can field as many firepower as the gallente one in fact, and it have more drone bay on top of it. In fact, the gallente destroyer don't look a lot more powerful than the tristan.
And for the uboat, it have 80% more alpha than the current caracal, but it will have twice the alpha of the futur one and built-in tracking computer...
In fact, the gallente destroyer seem pre nerfed and the caldari one pre buffed. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 11:37:00 -
[351] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: now make a proper catalyst fit... [Catalyst, Catalyst P2 - Brawler] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Small Hybrid Ambit Extension I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Hobgoblin II x1
506 dps and 1800ms^-1 before overheats. The new gallente dessies role as a dps boat is more than covered by the catalyst. if its meant to be a ranged drone boat, then lose the rails and improve the drones a smidge.
The blaster cat is a lesson in impracticality. It will die to the first kitey frigate with a TD. Also the future Coercer:
High : Medium Pulse II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Named warp disruptor Low: Internal Force Field Array Heat Sink II TE II Rigs: Energy collision Energy burst
333 DPS at 19 km with Scorch. 466 DPS with Conflagration. The blaster cats only place in combat is the undock or on a accel gate. |
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:24:00 -
[352] - Quote
Since these destroyers have different role bonus, how come that all the existing ones all have the same role bonus? Wouldn't a falloff bonus benefit the Thrasher and the Catalyst more? |
DarthRazr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:27:00 -
[353] - Quote
I think I'm excited about the new Caldari Missile Destroyer... I had always thought that it should have had one to begin with. That being said, with the ranges it will have, it pretty much nerfs any frigate it would come across... making "kiting" one in a frigate impossible? I mean, not entirely a bad thing... that is the traditional role of a Destroyer in any fleet
Anyway, good job, glad Caldari *finally* has a missile destroyer \o/ |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:41:00 -
[354] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Since these destroyers have different role bonus, how come that all the existing ones all have the same role bonus? Wouldn't a falloff bonus benefit the Thrasher and the Catalyst more?
Not if you're fitting arties like a sensible person. The catalyst already has an optimal and a falloff bonus, but it has 2 mids so who cares, it's terrible. |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:48:00 -
[355] - Quote
i just seen the new destroyer graphics and i have to say.i`m not really impressed at all.in fact they all look ugly and way out of theme with each race |
Rendiff
Flashpoint Industries
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:50:00 -
[356] - Quote
Quote:AMARR DESTROYER:
The Amarr destroyer is designed to take down opposition through indirect means. On the downside, the damage is nothing to write home about, but the combination of energy disruption ability plus drone control makes it dangerous at shutting enemy frigates off, then finishing them properly when they're helpless. It also has quite a generous dronebay, for multiple drone replacements.
Ship bonuses: +10% to drone damage and hitpoint per level +20% bonus to energy vampire and energy neutralizer transfer range per level Role bonus: +25% to ship capacitor recharge rate
What's the point of a cap recharge role bonus? Just increase it's base cap recharge 25% and give it a useful role bonus. Like say... 15% bonus to drone control range or maybe stasis webifier velocity. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:52:00 -
[357] - Quote
Alternate Amarr Destroyer Concept:
Keep the drone bonus. Increase the nuet/nos range bonus to 40% per level. **** the sentinel. Decrease the high slots to 3 or 4. Give it the option of three unbonused turrets. Keep mid slots at 2. Increase low slots to 6 or 7. Keep the recharge role bonus.
Thoughts- the Coercer will have heavy DPS covered. Give the tank aficionados something to sink their teeth into and play fully into the concept you had for this destroyer. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
508
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:56:00 -
[358] - Quote
Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.
Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:36:00 -
[359] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.
Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something.
5-3-4 with 5 turrets is my suggestion. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
305
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 16:08:00 -
[360] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Alternate Amarr Destroyer Concept: Keep the drone bonus. Increase the nuet/nos range bonus to 40% per level. **** the sentinel. Decrease the high slots to 3 or 4. Give it the option of three unbonused turrets. Keep mid slots at 2. Increase low slots to 6 or 7. Keep the recharge role bonus. Thoughts- the Coercer will have heavy DPS covered. Give the tank aficionados something to sink their teeth into and play fully into the concept you had for this destroyer. Yeah the neuting focus .. 40%/lvl 4-2-6 Let cap be the limiting factor when it comes to neuting, sacrifice tank or second mid to run more than two neuts. Keep the 3/3 unbonused gun/launcher. Swap cap charge bonus for a "soft" drone bonus like optimal range or tracking. And again, what the hell is 75m3 bay to be used for? Filling it costs as much as fitting a Coercer and chances are you or enemy wont make it beyond two flights maximum if that .. as wasted a stat as the cap bonus on the current Maller .
X Gallentius wrote:Fight will be over before Gank Gallente Dessie's hobgoblins can apply their "supplemental" 150 dps.
Edit: This ship needs tank since it can't control range and needs time for drones to apply dps. Will try to come up with something. That is the problem all drone carriers face on the small scale, everything can track/lock them and fights are so ferocious that one has 20-30s to make ones contribution. Zarnaks suggestion of 5-3-4 with five guns should give it the necessary oomph.
By the way, why does the missile spewers have one slot more than the drone boats. Missiles on the small scale are fully up to par with guns so the result is merely to make them OP from the get go like the 8 launcher caldari has been theorized to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |