Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ElrondHubbard
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 13:26:00 -
[31]
destroyers with a bit more speed, slightly smaller sig radius and a marginally better tank would be decent ships.
it's not that destroyers themselves are irredeemable, its just that their weaknesses seem to stack up in a particularly unpleasant way.
|
Tamaara
Amarr East Khanid Trading
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 14:50:00 -
[32]
Because destroyers are stuck between cruisers and frigates they get the disadvantages of both, but they really don't get any of the advantages.
Destroyers are slower than frigates because they weigh more, but they are slower than cruisers because they can't fit 10mn AB/mwd (well they can but not much else.)
The sig of a destroyer is high enough to be easily hit by medium guns but it's defense is too small to tank small weapons.
IMO the destroyers need to be beefed up to be closer to a cruiser, able to use 10mn propulsion and tank a little. The sig would suffer and you wouldn't be able to fit as much stuff as a real cruiser, but at least it would fill the role a lot better.
Recruitment Thread http://www.eastkhanid. |
Edania
Caldari Ordo Adeptus Astartes Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 15:59:00 -
[33]
so things in Sci fi dont do what the word means in the early 21st centuary you think that phaser rifle in startrek really spins the beam using groves in the barrel to provide accuracy? prehaps babylon 5s jump drive is really powered by a dozen pre teen girls playing with a skipping rope.
Star wars has its turbolasers thats ordinance does not travel at light speed is visible in a vacuum from an external viewpoint produce recoil and eject a substance that acts under the influence of gravity, the superlasrs subsiduary beams even stop stationary till the main beam fires by any definition not a laser
Star destroyers arent destroyers Omega class destroyers are not destroyers as each carries wings of fighters the various enterprises are usually categorised as cruisers god only knows what Andromeda is, Promethius, Korolev Daedalus, et al are all described as battlecruisers yet no other classes exist so the definition is valueless same with the Roger Young, and hell i dont even want to speculate on Lexx
Quote: my Clone was excelent, i just had too many skillpoints
|
Reithan
Caldari LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 16:24:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tamaara Because destroyers are stuck between cruisers and frigates they get the disadvantages of both, but they really don't get any of the advantages.
Destroyers are slower than frigates because they weigh more, but they are slower than cruisers because they can't fit 10mn AB/mwd (well they can but not much else.)
The sig of a destroyer is high enough to be easily hit by medium guns but it's defense is too small to tank small weapons.
IMO the destroyers need to be beefed up to be closer to a cruiser, able to use 10mn propulsion and tank a little. The sig would suffer and you wouldn't be able to fit as much stuff as a real cruiser, but at least it would fill the role a lot better.
It's funny, they stick a ship class between frigate and cruiser and it ends up being regarded as the worst ship ever, yet they stick a ship class between cruiser and battleship and it ends up being regarded as the best ship ever...
...weird. -----------------------------------------------
|
SkyCrane
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 16:51:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Garat Mant From Wikipedia:
In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft).
Therefore, defender missile bonuses, anti-drone armaments and electronic warfare equipment would seem to be in order.
I'd love to see tier 2 or tech 2 destroyers, but designing them such that their capabilities don't overlap with the cruisers above them or the ewar frigates that already exist.
-G
I'd have to agree on that, but then defendermissiles need to get fixed. Last time I tried them they were completely useless (it's been a while). You can't set them to be spammed conatantly, and you can't have a supportvessel to protect your ship if you get targeted. The targeted ship needs to have the defendermissiles else it won't work. ------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Please free to ignore typoes... I suck at typing... :) |
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 17:00:00 -
[36]
Well, seeing as the "Next Generation of Covert Ops Craft" are unable to mount Covert Ops Shields, why not a "next Generation Interdiction craft" that can't use Interdiction Sphere Launchers... (pet peeve, sorry)
Personally, I would like to see a new set of destroyers (req Level 2/3/4/5 Destroyer Skills)... perhaps geared a bit differently then the current lot that all have 7 or 8 Turret slots and at best 1 launcher slot...
How about a balanced version with 4/4 turret/launcher hard points?
Race based version, A Caldari Missile Destroyer (more launchers), a Gallente Drone Destroyer (fewer Turret hard points and more Drone Space) and so on...
None of us is as dumb as all of us...
|
EliteSlave
Minmatar Tau Ceti Global Production Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 17:08:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Edania so things in Sci fi dont do what the word means in the early 21st centuary you think that phaser rifle in startrek really spins the beam using groves in the barrel to provide accuracy? prehaps babylon 5s jump drive is really powered by a dozen pre teen girls playing with a skipping rope.
Star wars has its turbolasers thats ordinance does not travel at light speed is visible in a vacuum from an external viewpoint produce recoil and eject a substance that acts under the influence of gravity, the superlasrs subsiduary beams even stop stationary till the main beam fires by any definition not a laser
Star destroyers arent destroyers Omega class destroyers are not destroyers as each carries wings of fighters the various enterprises are usually categorised as cruisers god only knows what Andromeda is, Promethius, Korolev Daedalus, et al are all described as battlecruisers yet no other classes exist so the definition is valueless same with the Roger Young, and hell i dont even want to speculate on Lexx
Sir the Lexx is a Titan... :P Dev's if your Ugly and you know it.. and Proud of it... Sign Below ;) |
Minyon
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 17:21:00 -
[38]
I would like some new tech1 destroyers to fill each races missing roles
The Gallente one would be a drone ship with bonus like 20% drone control range and speed and 20% damage and drone hit points per lvl (may look like 4 bonus but its just a range and damge donus) it could have like 35m^3 drone bay to use light drones only with some back ups and not have much gun power maybe 4 guns.
The Caldari one would be a missile ship with a bonus to missile speed and damage. Dont know what the amarr and minmatar ones could be but i would give them more mid and low slots maybe a webing range bonus for the minmatar one
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 17:22:00 -
[39]
Hrm ok, Destroyers should have at the very least 7 high slots, otherwise they are just big frigates. For the Defender missile bonus, Always a good idea but defender missiles need their own launcher that is activated and then stays permanently on, it needs to shoot all incoming missiles/rockets that are fired from the ships the destroyer has targeted. For the tank, sure lets do something similar to the tier1 BC's and tier3 BS's. Infact why not have the same bonuses all together. Then we add a defender missile bonus as a real extra, much like the BC ability.
In regards to the usefulness and dissatisfaction most people have about the destroyer class, most forget that their only real experience with destroyers is when they were probably still in their 14 day trial or very near to it. Their skills sucked and so the ship sucked. When they had the isk and skills to pilot a Battlecruiser however their skills to use the battlecruiser were far superior to when they attempted to use the destroyer. For isk the characters when buying their first battlecruiser probably were doing higher level missions and could afford better equipment, oh and the player has experience at fitting their ship properly. No shield+armor tank on the same ship...
Basically don't blame the destroyer for your failure, you were inexperienced and if now you know how to fly a ship properly. Give them another go. They deserve that chance to prove their usefulness.
|
Lord Loom
Loom Service
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 18:25:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Lord Loom on 10/07/2007 18:27:26 destroyers don't suck, but I'd welcome a tier 2 destroyer (not sure what a possible T2 variant would do, tho) that's more than a cheap suicide-gank ship
maybe closer to a cruiser in both tank (less endangered under frigate fire, higher speed potential in order to evade cruiser fire) and gank (eg. with 7-8 small guns or even launchers but maybe a tracking- instead of a RoF penalty, turn it from frigate popper to a ship that can hurt unsuspecting cruiser-sized ships)?
|
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 18:57:00 -
[41]
i have an idea for a new tech II destroyer! same stats as a flycatcher, but give it cormorat bonuses, + 11 grid, another lowslot, and lose that damn 25% rof penalty.
|
Dorah Hawkwing
Chosen Path FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 19:47:00 -
[42]
T1 destroyers are very capable at their intended role:
Area denyal for interceptors and death zone for drones.
Watch a team of say coercers with SB's remove hostile drones from space around your fleet, and pop most inties quickly.
|
Cyan Nuevo
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2007.07.10 20:32:00 -
[43]
What are destroyers?
Ooooh right, I use them for looting. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |