Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herbatrix
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Am I the only person who thinks it'd be a good idea for CCP to bring in another set of Thrashers? It's one of few groups of ships that only have 1. I'd love to see a missile destroyer, for example. |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
632
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why? The idea has been posted a few times, but I've never ever seen any solid reasons why it would be a good thing. |
Herbatrix
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why not? |
So SuiMe
Belteaters
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
MOAR DESTROYERS |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
632
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 23:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Because there is no need for them in the game. Because the game is already balanced without them. Because it's more development work with no real purpose.
"Why not?" Isn't a reason, it's a complete lack of reason. It can also be written "I don't have any reason at all, but I still want what I want and that's all I care about" without the meaning changing at all. |
Belthazor4011
Battle BV
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 00:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
To quote myself from another thread:
Too little choice too little EHP.
-vs frigs itGÇÖs too good so they'll stay away from you -vs destroyers it has too much DPS and too little EHP in a matter of seconds and few shots itGÇÖs over. The battle is more about luck and tracking (hence why the Thrasher is still the best) then skill or good flying. -vs cruisers you lack the EHP to take them on
Possible fixes. -Simply have more destroyers, there are tons of frigs and cruisers and there are even 3 BCs by now. Would a 2nd T1 destroyer per race really be that hard to do? -Give the Destroyers more EHP so they can have good battles among themselves or actually take on a cruiser and have a chance. I mean I know this means frigs stand even less of a change against them but seriously who is taking a frig to a destroyer anyways?
Those two can obviously be combined make new destroyers the tier 2 kind and give those the extra EHP I mean even T2 destroyers donGÇÖt get resist bonuses. Destroyers are simply tied down in ability by their EHP.
And please donGÇÖt reply by saying I once killed a destroyer with a frig or I killed a cruiser in a destroyer. Exceptions happen, but in general neither of these fights is a good idea. |
Radelix Cisko
The Adjustment Team
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 01:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Because they can behave like pocket cruisers. I can buy 100 of them for a pittance and lose them all day long. Instead of new ones, can we get a resist buff or hp buff.
...i'll be going |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
242
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 02:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
The small ship class is probably the most crowded of the ship classes. There is alot wrong with it too. T1 frigates need buffing. EAF are still sad in the pants. Faction frigates might need a revisit. And on top of that people seem to want T3 frigates and more destroyers.
If new ships are added they need to have a very niche role. Giving intel on a system as a replacement of local. Or seeking out cloaked ships. Tank and gank and tackle are all taken care of. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
159
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 04:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
I wouldnt mind haveing more destroyer hull type ships.
They Dont have to have combat bonuses only or they could be focused roles like neuts or webs or Drones.
A gallente drone destroyer that can put out 5 light drones. or 2 med and 3 light.
A Caldari destroyer with light missile bonuses. Not rockets mind you but light missiles. So people might actually use them pvp.
A minnie one with no weapon bonus just a bonus to Shield boosting or something lame since the Minnieone is already good.
A Amarr one with a bonuse to Neuts or something.
There are lots of interesting things that could be done with the class of ships. That give you more options and make them interesting.
And not all of them have to be good. Just having options is nice sometimes. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
805
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 05:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Why? The idea has been posted a few times, but I've never ever seen any solid reasons why it would be a good thing.
Because those are weak and T2 versions are not interesting for other reason then if it's someone else who fly them? T3 version of those, nullified, cloacking hunters covert cyno capable etc, this would be awesome and a good reason to train destroyers to 5 other than just try to get in "that" corp/alliance because you can fly dictors or scimitars/guardians. |
|
Balkor Wolf
Rekall Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 13:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
One idea I heard when there were discussions about nerfing super caps either on the forums or just a chat with the Corp is that super carriers should have to use a special type of Cyno which can only be activated by one specific ship so its obvious that supers are about to be dropped on you.
I rekon a new T2 destroyer with something like this implemented would be a nice addition |
Herbatrix
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 13:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:I wouldnt mind haveing more destroyer hull type ships.
They Dont have to have combat bonuses only or they could be focused roles like neuts or webs or Drones.
A gallente drone destroyer that can put out 5 light drones. or 2 med and 3 light.
A Caldari destroyer with light missile bonuses. Not rockets mind you but light missiles. So people might actually use them pvp.
A minnie one with no weapon bonus just a bonus to Shield boosting or something lame since the Minnieone is already good.
A Amarr one with a bonuse to Neuts or something.
There are lots of interesting things that could be done with the class of ships. That give you more options and make them interesting.
And not all of them have to be good. Just having options is nice sometimes.
This was basically what I was thinking, Destroyers that are more focused on the factions different skills, at the moment they're all very similar.
Another unrelated idea would be to make a destroyer similar to how the T3 BCs work, in that you allow them to fit medium sized guns at the expense of EHP. Obviously theres a lot of balancing that'd have to be done in this regard, though it'd be interesting to see as these fly around as at the moment I very rarely see cruisers in pvp.
And for those asking why is it needed - 'why not' is quite the adequate answer. Would you have been happy just to have 1 cruiser, 1 frigate, 1 type of battlecruiser, etc. with no others? Variety prevents stagnation. |
Herbatrix
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 13:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Accidentally hit 'quote' instead of 'edit', ignore this post. |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
Why don't we start by fixing cruisers aside from T3 they are a rare lot, before we make more ships that make them even more obsolite. |
Balkor Wolf
Rekall Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Why don't we start by fixing cruisers aside from T3 they are a rare lot, before we make more ships that make them even more obsolite.
I generally see a lot of cruisers around tbh, sure not many compared to other ship types but they are far from a rare sight. |
Luba Cibre
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Balkor Wolf wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:Why don't we start by fixing cruisers aside from T3 they are a rare lot, before we make more ships that make them even more obsolite. I generally see a lot of cruisers around tbh, sure not many compared to other ship types but they are far from a rare sight. You fly cruisers because you want fights, not because they're especially good. |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Herbatrix wrote:Another unrelated idea would be to make a destroyer similar to how the T3 BCs work, in that you allow them to fit medium sized guns at the expense of EHP
Now that's a great idea. A fragile destroyer sized ship that can use cruiser guns. We shall call these new ships.... cruisers.
We have plenty of small t1 ships that don't get used as it is.
Currently the destroyers work as follows:
Thasher - high alpha-strike, good for suicide ganking in empire Catalyst - high DPS, good for suicide ganking in empire Coercer - rainbow laser disco ship Cormorant - meh |
Balkor Wolf
Rekall Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jafit wrote:Herbatrix wrote:Another unrelated idea would be to make a destroyer similar to how the T3 BCs work, in that you allow them to fit medium sized guns at the expense of EHP Now that's a great idea. A fragile destroyer sized ship that can use cruiser guns. We shall call these new ships.... cruisers. We have plenty of small t1 ships that don't get used as it is. Currently the destroyers work as follows: Thasher - high alpha-strike, good for suicide ganking in empire Catalyst - high DPS, good for suicide ganking in empire Coercer - rainbow laser disco ship Cormorant - meh
Made me smile =) |
Batelle
HOMELE55
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
a new tier of destroyers would basically obselete the current tier of destroyers, which are already are already surpassed by the thrasher. Giving them a new role might be interesting, but imo there's not much room for new roles that aren't covered by EAFs, AFs, or t1 cruisers. Taking RogueOperator's idea's as an example. For gallente, a drone-destroyer wouldn't do anything better done in an ishkur or nano'd vexor. Similarly, the Caldari that want an effective and inexpensive light missile platform already have the assault-launcher caracal. An active shield boosting destroyer is stupid idea, and assault frigs are much more suited to this anyway. and a small fast neuting platform is solidly the domain of the sentinel and cruor, and on the cruiser level the arbitrator. My point is anyone that needs ships for these things can do them now much better than a new destroyer could. The game doesn't need a new set of ships that no one has a reason to fly.
oh, and medium guns on a destroyer is a role already covered by t1 gank-fitted cruisers. They've got plenty of mobility and damage. |
Cyniac
Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance
138
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
The way this could work is if you made them non-gunnery related only ships...
Say for example ship class which would have a bonus to racial smartbomb bonus - I can see that as being highly situational but very bad news for frigates (and yeah dessies are anti frig platforms!)
I love dessies, I wanted to be a focussed Catalyst pilot when I was a week old. Took my catalyst everywhere, squeezed every little last bit of joy out of that machine, flew nothing else for months. I flew them in missions, in fleets, in highsec, in lowsec, in wormholes, everywhere!
I used them in combat, as miners, salvagers, scouts whatever. Really... I would love more dessies, but I just struggle to find a niche for them...
But yeah... didn't take too long to really reach the limits of what you can do with a dessie.
Having said that - a covops dessie would make me salivate with joy. |
|
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 23:08:00 -
[21] - Quote
If you can come up with another valid anti-frig role that isn't already filled by another ship, sure. Good luck with that. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
L'Petit Object
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 23:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
Because it is impossible to catch cloakies: A destroyer that gives the ability to uncloak ships or see cloaked ships. Who hunts the hunters? Anit cov-ops. Anti-Scanning ship. |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 00:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
Errr aint it ment to be that battleships eat battlecruisers that eat cruisers that eat destroyers that eat frigates ?
Why are people asking quite wierd stuff like "destroyers that can take on cruisers" ... whats the darn point of cruisers then ? |
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 05:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
Cedo Nulli wrote:Errr aint it ment to be that battleships eat battlecruisers that eat cruisers that eat destroyers that eat frigates ?
Why are people asking quite wierd stuff like "destroyers that can take on cruisers" ... whats the darn point of cruisers then ?
This. A million times this. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
244
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 05:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
The Thrasher is the quintessential Destroyer. The magic sauce that makes it great is it's damage bonus. Where the Corm has 7 turret slots and the Coercer and Cat have 8 - the Thrasher essentially has 8.75. It can put out DPS that is disproportionate to the other races. Now don't get me wrong - the other destroyers are alot of fun and can fulfill their roles as frigate killers - just not as perfectly as the Thrasher.
An MSE AC Thrasher can put out 430 DPS with about 7.5k EHP. That is very competitive with the Wolf. An Arty Thrasher outshines an Arty Jaguar in terms of damage output by almost 100%. If you look at the other destroyers vs. their AF cousins none are as competitive. The cormorant is outshown in every way imaginable by the Harpy. The Catalyst has 25% more firepower then the Enyo and barely half of it's EHP.
How to level the field? Trade a turret slot for a utility slot on the Catalyst and Coercer. Trade one of the bonuses on the other three destroyers for a damage bonus.
Catalyst - tracking and damage Coercer - Cap and damage Corm - Optimal and damage
All would retain the role bonus. Tweaking is all the destroyer class needs. |
Ray Hawkins
Zyklon B Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
I AM relatively new, but why not take destroyers in the direction we all already use them for?
Give them % bonus' in the hacking/salvage/mining and analyzing fields....keep em race specific, but they could be more of a freelancers ship.
It'd give newbies something else to work towards (and make money with) while they get used to their races ship specific ups and downs.
I didn't come up with this alone, their was a whole solar system discussing it earlier. I just REALLY like the idea. We're not all into combat, and I have yet to see a +5% to hacking on anything, ship-wise. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
140
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
Find a niche role that isn't already filled and we'll talk.
A hunter/killer for cloakies is one of the better ideas that's been knocked around. No idea how it would work though. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 18:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ray Hawkins wrote:I AM relatively new, but why not take destroyers in the direction we all already use them for?
Give them % bonus' in the hacking/salvage/mining and analyzing fields....keep em race specific, but they could be more of a freelancers ship.
It'd give newbies something else to work towards (and make money with) while they get used to their races ship specific ups and downs.
I didn't come up with this alone, their was a whole solar system discussing it earlier. I just REALLY like the idea. We're not all into combat, and I have yet to see a +5% to hacking on anything, ship-wise.
I like this idea.
Make them some middle ground utility ships types. Like Osprey or Scythe for those not wanting to get out of the destroyer hull just yet.
Lets not get hung up on our modern convention of what a destroyer is. Its better to think of it just as a hull size type.
Some Utility and Mining versions would be cool. Better versions of the Frigate mining ships would be nice. A hull with a Hacking bonus and role bonus like that sound like fun.
Not all ships need to be PvP Beasts.
Its just about adding so variety to the hull type. We have crazy amounts of frig, cruiser, BC and BS hulls.
|
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 18:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
Give them mining bonus and ability to cloak only while mining. The Covert Ops miner role is unfilled in EVE. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos Darthewok - Serious Biznits II Part B |
Skorpynekomimi
Omega Vector
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 20:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
L'Petit Object wrote:Because it is impossible to catch cloakies: A destroyer that gives the ability to uncloak ships or see cloaked ships. Who hunts the hunters? Anit cov-ops. Anti-Scanning ship.
I'd like to see this too. AFK cloaking is a known issue. Cloaking is, right now, extremely hard to counter.
So, why not make a use for destroyers as finding them? High alpha to take the buggers out, plenty of high slots for guns and cloaks and probe launchers, and space for tackle AND tank. They could be like modern-day attack subs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |