Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
so many negatives here.
who knows maybe they will suck, maybe they will be allright. they wont overpower t3 fleets, but every1 saying they wont be used in wormholes is crazy because they will be. they won't be used to bash pos or for heavy engagements, but they may have some niche uses. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2332
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
I think they could be cool if they made the new Frig only WH's able to field up to a destroyer. Being able to have a T3 style small ship that could make use of these frig only holes would be cool. Otherwise those frig holes IMO are still essentially worthless and annoying. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
783
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:43:00 -
[33] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:I think they could be cool if they made the new Frig only WH's able to field up to a destroyer. Being able to have a T3 style small ship that could make use of these frig only holes would be cool. Otherwise those frig holes IMO are still essentially worthless and annoying.
They already field up to a destroyer, and multi bubble hic cruisers.
They still aren't used. Yaay!!!! |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2332
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:I think they could be cool if they made the new Frig only WH's able to field up to a destroyer. Being able to have a T3 style small ship that could make use of these frig only holes would be cool. Otherwise those frig holes IMO are still essentially worthless and annoying. They already field up to a destroyer, and multi bubble hic cruisers. They still aren't used.
Oh really? I had heard frig holes and never tried.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
783
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:52:00 -
[35] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:I think they could be cool if they made the new Frig only WH's able to field up to a destroyer. Being able to have a T3 style small ship that could make use of these frig only holes would be cool. Otherwise those frig holes IMO are still essentially worthless and annoying. They already field up to a destroyer, and multi bubble hic cruisers. They still aren't used. Oh really? I had heard frig holes and never tried.
And that is one of the many issues of the frig hole. We'll see if people will use destroyers in wormhole space. Right now, probably not, but we need to see the stats and how they work. Yaay!!!! |
AssassinationsdoneWrong
The Nexus 7's
318
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:I have been nagging Corbexx endlessly on skype about this (poor guy). I am in two minds on this as i see the massive downside to them overlooking rebalancing/fixing T3 cruisers. With the new destroyers not looking to be released for a little while i don't have any optimism left that they are currently working on T3 cruisers or looking to work on them in the near future, that ship has sailed i think.
I am still gratefull however that WH's will get a buff income increase with the new destroyer having its resources coming from existing T3 products.
I am bittersweet on this one...
All of this. Reeks of distraction and "wtf do we do now to avoid them talking about T3 rebalances and poses?" The Nexus 7's
What we fall short of in numbers we more than make up for in stupidity |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
no this was done because of sleeper loot value rebalancing |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
230
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Teleil Zoomers wrote:no this was done because of sleeper loot value rebalancing
Translation: CCP: "We dun goofed. WHs are now empty. Here try this" |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
783
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:Winthorp wrote:I have been nagging Corbexx endlessly on skype about this (poor guy). I am in two minds on this as i see the massive downside to them overlooking rebalancing/fixing T3 cruisers. With the new destroyers not looking to be released for a little while i don't have any optimism left that they are currently working on T3 cruisers or looking to work on them in the near future, that ship has sailed i think.
I am still gratefull however that WH's will get a buff income increase with the new destroyer having its resources coming from existing T3 products.
I am bittersweet on this one... All of this. Reeks of distraction and "wtf do we do now to avoid them talking about T3 rebalances and poses?"
Honestly I'd be terrified to do T3 rebalancing, because there is 0 chance that there isn't a massive global nerf to them all (and I love the damn things). Something will be ripped from them, and there will be nothing but screams from the community.
Yes I'd be terrified if I had to release the "features" to T3's that will be done. They are going to get kicked in the teeth, with us along with them.
With the most recent wormhole changes, they lost a good chunk of people. CCP can either see this as an opportunity to Implement All the Wormhole Changes now, and allow a newish crew to move in, and possibly alienate or vacate all of wormhole space as people may just say "those ships are now crap". Or they can hold off on any changes to see if wormhole space increases, then run the risk of re-alienating the new people with the giant wiffile bat of nerfdom.
Either choice sucks, but I get there "hesitation". Yaay!!!! |
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
505
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:22:00 -
[40] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:Winthorp wrote:I have been nagging Corbexx endlessly on skype about this (poor guy). I am in two minds on this as i see the massive downside to them overlooking rebalancing/fixing T3 cruisers. With the new destroyers not looking to be released for a little while i don't have any optimism left that they are currently working on T3 cruisers or looking to work on them in the near future, that ship has sailed i think.
I am still gratefull however that WH's will get a buff income increase with the new destroyer having its resources coming from existing T3 products.
I am bittersweet on this one... All of this. Reeks of distraction and "wtf do we do now to avoid them talking about T3 rebalances and poses?" Honestly I'd be terrified to do T3 rebalancing, because there is 0 chance that there isn't a massive global nerf to them all (and I love the damn things). Something will be ripped from them, and there will be nothing but screams from the community. Yes I'd be terrified if I had to release the "features" to T3's that will be done. They are going to get kicked in the teeth, with us along with them. With the most recent wormhole changes, they lost a good chunk of people. CCP can either see this as an opportunity to Implement All the Wormhole Changes now, and allow a newish crew to move in, and possibly alienate or vacate all of wormhole space as people may just say "those ships are now crap". Or they can hold off on any changes to see if wormhole space increases, then run the risk of re-alienating the new people with the giant wiffile bat of nerfdom. Either choice sucks, but I get there "hesitation".
Actually about 6 months ago rise was saying that most t3 cruisers were fine and that when t3s came to rebalance there woulf be a few nerfs but nothing too horrible and it would be mostly buffs to the unused subs
Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 05:12:25 -
[41] - Quote
I'd take a 20% nerf to the hitpoint defence subsystems for the ability to change roles mid flight. Throw in a little more pg for my alpha loki and the a sub that lets cruisers through frig holes and i'd be a happy man.
Unfortunately when you throw Fozzi into the mix, things could go either way.
+1
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
73
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 08:07:04 -
[42] - Quote
Its probs will be fozzie who will look at the jump changes and how well they are received then balance T3's according to null sec instead of W-space.
Watch as the T3 becomes the most worthless ship in the game all because one guy doesn't give a dam about w-space
So Much Space
|
Winthorp
2814
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 08:15:28 -
[43] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:Its probs will be fozzie who will look at the jump changes and how well they are received then balance T3's according to null sec instead of W-space.
Watch as the T3 becomes the most worthless ship in the game all because one guy doesn't give a dam about w-space
This is prob an excessive over-reaction. I have listened to Fozie discuss T3's before and he made me excited for a possible rebalance. But i do hope the T3 destroyers are not a test platform for T3 cruisers as this way forward was never spoken about and would be a simplistic development path for them and not a good outlook. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 08:41:31 -
[44] - Quote
T3 cruiser rebalance:
- remove rigslots - give love to the unused subs (those without any direct bonuses, small range bonus to RR subs) - give drone Proteus more cargo bay (to make it possible to carry subs and drones)
done |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 08:50:55 -
[45] - Quote
Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay.
+1
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
788
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 11:06:30 -
[46] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay.
The idea's been bounced around, whether to allow them to remove rigs and swap stuff, or just remove rigs altogether because they don't allow you the freedom to modify your ship as needed.
Yaay!!!!
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 11:23:07 -
[47] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay.
Removing rigs would also bring down the power level of T3s. I appreciate what you are saying about the lost customisation options, but making all the unused subsystems actually worth fitting on a T3 would remedy this to some extent.
Even without rigs, T3s would be considerably more powerful (think tank and gank) than HACs, but not overpowering battleships anymore.
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 11:31:30 -
[48] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Why remove rig slots? all you would be doing is making the ship less customisable. It would be better it T3 ships had the ability to remove rigs without destroying them... Maybe have a separate rig and sup system bay. Removing rigs would also bring down the power level of T3s. I appreciate what you are saying about the lost customisation options, but making all the unused subsystems actually worth fitting on a T3 would remedy this to some extent. Even without rigs, T3s would be considerably more powerful (think tank and gank) than HACs, but not overpowering battleships anymore.
If my jamgu, alpha loki, 11au/second warp speed tengu could talk, they would strongly protest
I understand the theory but it would be a nightmare for CCP to balance T3 cruisers if they removed rigs slots so i doubt it will happen. Either way only time will tell.
+1
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 11:54:47 -
[49] - Quote
Yeah, it's been a topic for constant debate since forever, and it seems that CCP is trying to avoid T3 rebalancing as long as they can :D
But I do think that removing rigs would make them easier to balance, less variables.
Then there's also the question of SP loss, currently it's cool mechanic, but I'm not sure if would be appropriate with my suggested rigless T3s. |
Winthorp
2814
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 12:14:49 -
[50] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote: But I do think that removing rigs would make them easier to balance, less variables.
The last CCP Fozzie comment i remember was that he thought it would be good if you could install multiple sets of rigs and change them.... But again we all have to wait for the inevitable. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 00:02:01 -
[51] - Quote
Not a fan of losing rigs, stuff like being able to use a T2 burst aerator rig, etc. and make up the loss of tank, fitting or whatever with implants or more expensive modules and so on is part of what make T3s fun IMO.
I do like the idea of being able to swap between (but not remove without destroying) sets of rigs though.
I guess on the versatility front though it would be a huge amount of effort to develop having 3 custom modes for a t3 that you could toggle between (with cooldown) each with their own set of rigs and sub-systems would be an immense way forward for them - I wouldn't complain too much if these new destroyers were a template for that end goal heh. (Would be hugely complicated with fittings mind).
IMO main changes needed to T3s:
A review of the lesser used or not used for their bonus sub-systems like hardpoint efficiency configuration, tactical targeting network/cpu efficiency gate, etc. and in combination with this look at reusing them to create more opportunities for setups that are a more generalised version of current T2 that aren't covered very well - i.e. the thread about for instance a more generalised guardian could be facilitated through repurposing the tactical targeting network sub-system on the legion.
A review of sub-systems that allow for significantly out of cruiser specification setups and apply more representative levels of penalties for having those bonuses (I'm very much not in the for instance nerf EHP into the ground camp - if for no other reason that viewpoint is too focused at a very specific set of setups and not looking at or even caring about the knock on effect on other setups that savaging those stats would have). |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
1728
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 01:29:53 -
[52] - Quote
Back on topic, these destroyers have some promise. I however have some concerns in my mind about the mechanics of their "stances"or modes. Like, if you have 3 modes how do you change between them? Rightclick on your capacitor would seem sensible (also, right click for the radial menu) but there's already a million things on the radial and list menus. Or is it a module, like the bastion module, with a cycle time?
The thing is, I'd see this mutability of modes as being fine if you have a cycle time, and you can switch between them only every couple of seconds. Knowing CCP it's either going to be 30s or 60s. This then enforces a certain behaviour on the pilot; if you choose tank mode you get stuck in a tanky, slow moving ship and can be tackled before switching to manoeuvre mode, to move away and tank up again or snipe mode. If your opponent is a BS, well, that then pushes your choices down one particular set of choices, andd if it's a fast frigate it forces you to make a different set of choices.
The usefulness of this whole concept for a large-sig, low-tank destroyer hull will be very much dependent on the length of any cycle time on the module or ship. However an absence of a cycle time would produce even more problems, and potentially be extremely powerful, allowing abuse by nanofag concepts where you could nano away and snipe for seconds at a time before nanoing away, etc.
I'm awaiting more details like this before really committing to liking or disliking the ships.
As for the ships themselves, well. if they are anywhere near the fitting layout of the current destroyers, they'll be pretty damn useless. There's a reason why you hardly ever see Destroyers in wormholes, and that's the sig radius and tank of them. They just blow up.
They will need, IMO between 25-35K EHP in tank mode, 40-60 sig radius, 300-350 DPS in shoot mode, and mobility in excess of AFs in manouevre mode, if they are going to be useful. DPS will have to be at better ranges, too, for the ONLY dessie which can do anything at any range is the sniper Cormy or the arty thrasher.
I think they'll deploy with 6 highs, 4 turrets/missiles, 2 utilities. One of those highs probably gets devoted to the module for stances (lets call it the Transgender module).
I'd hope the Transgender Module would give several benefits, including; Shoot mode: +100% damage, tracking/explo velocity, blah blah, +sig, -speed Tank mode: Hey, mini-bastion resists, -sig, -speed Move mode: 100% speed, +sig, -tank, -DPS
Eg; 4 x unbonused 200mm ACs + 2 gyros = ~180 DPS, so in shoot mode it would hit 360 DPS Assuming a base doubling of EHP to 14K, a min-bastion effect would double it to 28K Doubling the speed would see AB speeds around 2200m/s, and MWD speeds of 4,500-5,500 pre-links. Which is fine for burst speed to tackle ceptors (and, lets just say, a bit wrong in Black Holes)
This is kind of a range of EHP, sig, DPS and speed i'd be comfortable seeing. And let's also talk price - would you pay 100M ISK for that? Yes. 300M? No. A T1 cruiser would whip your ass out of it.
I'm hoping they have more mids and lows than T1 dessies, because there's an overabundance of utility mids in the frigate arena at the moment (eg; damp Condor, TD Slasher, etc) which provide frigates with the ability to solo and kite. But dessies? 2 mids for the Amarr dessies is a joke. Even the Executioner gets more midslot spam than that.
Midslots are lacking. The armour Thrasher is about the only destroyer with utility mids, beside the EWAR Corax, which is created by taking a Corax, fitting absolutely no tank, and turning it into a kiting EWAR jokebird. Which is actually more powerful than any other Corax, because the Coraxx sucks and needs more CPU, PG badly. But it languishes un-buffed for #fozzie reasons.
I would hope that the T3 dessies get 9 slots split between mids and lows. This would see, eg; Caldari: 5 mids (Prop + Invul + MSE + Point + MSE?), 3 lows (DCU, BCU, BCU) Gallente: 4 mids (Prop, Tackle, Web, util), 4 lows (Plate, EANM, DCU, DDA or magstab) Minmatar: 4 mids (prop + MSE + point + invul), 4 lows (DCU, 2 Gyro + TE) Amarr: 3 mids (Prop + point + injector), 5 lows (Plate + EANM + DCU + Sink + Util)
Will they blow frig holes open to frig-dessie-dictor-HICtor gangs?
I have tried, and failed, to justify bringing any T1 destroyers into wormholes to exploit the frigate holes. They are just too useless.
I won't give away all of our nascent frig hole doctrine, but destroyers are outcompeted in all situations except massed Talwars, or gank W-R suicide Catalysts due to their slow speed, basically frigate-level tanks (less than most AF's) and double frigate sig radius which leaves them as punching bags. They literally take double the inbound damage of all AFs and even pre-HIC rebalance, they get the same anaemic DPS as all the HICs and 10% the tank. You're better off rolling a HIC around than a Dessie.
You have literally NO EWAR capability in the Dessie hull range, and haav
J's before K's.
Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew.
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
73
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 09:03:49 -
[53] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Its probs will be fozzie who will look at the jump changes and how well they are received then balance T3's according to null sec instead of W-space.
Watch as the T3 becomes the most worthless ship in the game all because one guy doesn't give a dam about w-space This is prob an excessive over-reaction. I have listened to Fozie discuss T3's before and he made me excited for a possible rebalance. But i do hope the T3 destroyers are not a test platform for T3 cruisers as this way forward was never spoken about and would be a simplistic development path for them and not a good outlook.
Excessive over reaction maybe but I would rather be surprised by CCP doing something interesting than being disappointed when they screw it up again
So Much Space
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
725
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 10:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: Tank mode: Hey, mini-bastion resists, -sig, -speed
This time, with insane mass penalty please. Drifting destroyers would be so damn amazing!
"I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
|
Ilaister
Task Force Proteus Protean Concept
114
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 01:02:20 -
[55] - Quote
Trinket - as ever you are full of wisdom but you neglect T2 destroyers in your writeup entirely. Just because they can fit bubbles doesn't mean that's all they can do. Sabre is still a lot of people's most-used/most-fun ship to fly in w-space. Flycatcher changes put her up there now too.
Expand your mind man :) |
Paul Vashar
Periphery Bound Dominatus Atrum Mortis
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 15:18:06 -
[56] - Quote
I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs |
Aladar Dangerface
Transcendent Sedition Protean Concept
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 17:14:33 -
[57] - Quote
Paul Vashar wrote:I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this?
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
Paul Vashar
Periphery Bound Dominatus Atrum Mortis
4
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 18:14:16 -
[58] - Quote
Aladar Dangerface wrote:Paul Vashar wrote:I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this? Everyone says they like triple Ds, but really nobody does, not even the person who has them. Also, I hear that they give you back trouble. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1317
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 05:46:34 -
[59] - Quote
Paul Vashar wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:Paul Vashar wrote:I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this? Everyone says they like triple Ds, but really nobody does, not even the person who has them. Also, I hear that they give you back trouble.
But it is OK, we now have "ample" meta fittings
[u]_There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE _[/u]
|
Kirasten
No Vacancies
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 17:53:13 -
[60] - Quote
Paul Vashar wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:Paul Vashar wrote:I would like to propose the name "Triple D's" or 3xDs Care to expand on this? Everyone says they like triple Ds, but really nobody does, not even the person who has them. Also, I hear that they give you back trouble.
Come fly a tech 3 destroyer, get back trouble.
I like it. We need to go wider on the advertisement campaign. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |