EVE Search - Heavy Destroyer Class

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Heavy Destroyer Class

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 12:36:00 - [1] ISHMOR T2 Battleship Gallente- Hull: Hyperion Class Role: Heavy Destroyer Develepor: CreoDron Following the tradition of Gallente warfare, CreoDron came through with a Heavy Destroyer that deserves attention. Concentrating on Drone power and using similar technologies used in the Ishkur and Ishtar to expand drone bay and drone bandwidth giving the Pilot of this ship the ability to control up to 10 Heavy Drones at once, making this a main and proud addition to any fleet on the battlefield. Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level. Heavy Destroyer Skill Bonus: +1 Drone Control and 50 m3 extra Drone Bay space per level CPU- 610 tf Powergrid- 14,500 MW Calibration- 400 points Fittings- 6 low, 6 mid, 6 high Turret Hardpoints- 4 Launcher Hardpoints- 0 Rig Slots- 2 Drone Capacity- 250m3 Drones- 250 Mbit/sec Armor- Hitpoints: 6,400 HP Resists: EM-50% Expl-10% Kin-83.75% Therm-67.5% Shield- Capacity: 5,550 HP Recharge: 2,500 sec Resists: EM-0% Expl-50% Kin-85% Therm-60% Capacitor Capacity- 6,100 GJ Capacitor Recharge- 1,500 sec Targeting- Range- 72,000 m Max Targets- 7 Speed- 7.55 sec Scan Res- 110 mm Magnometric Sensor Strength- 23 points Signiture- 485 m Speed- 110 m/sec Inertia Mod- 0.124 Warp Mod- 1.5x SKILLS- Battleship V + Heavy Assault V > Heavy Destroyer I JUST FOR FUN(but I'd Love this) See if sum1 can add Specs for the Other Factions using- ROKH, ABADDON and MAELSTROM
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:03:00 - [2] Carriers not enough 'heavy drone ship' for you or what? Let us not make all our trained gun and missile skills useless. ___
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:07:00 - [3] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Carriers not enough 'heavy drone ship' for you or what? Let us not make all our trained gun and missile skills useless. Too lazy to read the bottom of the post and come up with a Heavy Destroyer using Abaddon Class Hull???
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:07:00 - [4] 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar.
Serge Bastana Gallente GWA Corp	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:14:00 - [5] If they were to make a heavy destroyer, wouldn't it be more suitable to a BC hull, since destroyers' primary goal is to take down smaller ships, the BC version would be suitable for taking out pesky cruisers. A BS hull doesn't feel right at all for a destroyer of any kind. ------------------------------------------------ You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag. Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited!
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:15:00 - [6] Originally by: darius mclever 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar. Did you reply just to use the word "fubar"? Be constructive, theres no more DPS than 2x Ishtar, you want a weakness, think of one and add it to your post and remmber, its just for fun.
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Serge Bastana If they were to make a heavy destroyer, wouldn't it be more suitable to a BC hull, since destroyers' primary goal is to take down smaller ships, the BC version would be suitable for taking out pesky cruisers. A BS hull doesn't feel right at all for a destroyer of any kind. YES! I like, T2 Drake, Myrm, Harbinger and Hurricane :))))
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:35:00 - [8] Edited by: Lone Provider on 03/03/2010 13:35:36 And I just wanted to add that theres quite a big gap between- Battleships >...............> Carriers/Caps
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:44:00 - [9] Originally by: Lone Provider Originally by: darius mclever 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar. Did you reply just to use the word "fubar"? Be constructive, theres no more DPS than 2x Ishtar, you want a weakness, think of one and add it to your post and remmber, its just for fun. ok you get twice the dps of an ishtar just from drones and get 6 bonused blasters on top of it? that doesnt sound overpowered to you? well you want some high gank t2 battleships. marauders fill that role quite nicely already. they have a decent penalty (sensor strength/scan res), that you dont see them as requirement for pvp. but if you get the penalties handled, you get face melting dps with strong tank. yes there is no drone focused marauder yet. but well for most cases i would prefer dps that cant be destroyed. you can be sure i was thinking long already what role we could give another class of t2 battleships (hey i still want my torp spamming dark khanid abaddon), but so far i couldnt come up with a decent role that would warrant a new ship class. Originally by: Lone Provider Originally by: Serge Bastana If they were to make a heavy destroyer, wouldn't it be more suitable to a BC hull, since destroyers' primary goal is to take down smaller ships, the BC version would be suitable for taking out pesky cruisers. A BS hull doesn't feel right at all for a destroyer of any kind. YES! I like, T2 Drake, Myrm, Harbinger and Hurricane :)))) Nighthawk, Astarte, Absolution, Sleipnir exist already. if they should be using the hulls of the tier 2 BS could be debated, but well commandships came before tier 2 BCs. most BCs and commandships can be setup with heavy dps (700-900dps) and decent EHP (50-80k). making an even stronger version of them would bring them into BS class dps/EHP. and then you get the question "why bring that expensive t2 hull, when i can get the same out of an insurable t1 BS?".
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:13:00 - [10] Edited by: Lone Provider on 03/03/2010 14:15:42 Well how about we give the Hyperion, Rokh, Abaddon and Maelstrom some warfare link and RR bonus's and we have some T2 Flagship Class

Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.03.03 15:38:00 - [11] You sure thought that one through didn't you? ___
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.03 16:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Grarr Dexx You sure thought that one through didn't you? "of course"
White Tree	Posted - 2010.03.03 16:06:00 - [13] How about we just make the Hyperion the fastest battleship, drop a mid and give it two more lows so it can perform the function it was originally intended too, the Battleship Blaster Boat.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.03 16:54:00 - [14] Originally by: White Tree How about we just make the Hyperion the fastest battleship, drop a mid and give it two more lows so it can perform the function it was originally intended too, the Battleship Blaster Boat. you need that extra mid for the 2nd cap booster to run your 2 reps and the cap hungry blasters. most serious hyperion user actually see that extra mid as an advantage.
Delenne Sheridan	Posted - 2010.03.03 17:03:00 - [15] Originally by: darius mclever 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? Performance on which end? Server or client?
Last Wolf Rage For Order	Posted - 2010.03.03 17:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Lone Provider Edited by: Lone Provider on 03/03/2010 13:35:36 And I just wanted to add that theres quite a big gap between- Battleships >...............> Carriers/Caps And CCP has stated they WANT that Gap. They haven't introduced Flagships, or mini-dreads, or Mini-carriers for a reason. And they have stated this before. Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds!
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.03.03 17:26:00 - [17] Originally by: darius mclever 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar. Given most drone modules are mid slot-based, there's nothing wrong with a 6 mid layout. Additionally who said it had to have 6 or 7 TURRET slots - how about only 4 turret slots and have the rest as utility slots for RR or DLA? CCP's inability to effectively optimize performance is obviously going to be an issue but having a whole faction nerfed because of it really sucks.
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.03.03 17:29:00 - [18] Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: darius mclever 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar. Inability? Wow, you're a really fast one aren't you? Given most drone modules are mid slot-based, there's nothing wrong with a 6 mid layout. Additionally who said it had to have 6 or 7 TURRET slots - how about only 4 turret slots and have the rest as utility slots for RR or DLA? CCP's inability to effectively optimize performance is obviously going to be an issue but having a whole faction nerfed because of it really sucks. ___
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.03 18:41:00 - [19] I've re-done the Specs, no Turret or Missile hardpoints/bonus's, and can sum1 do the other factions
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.03.03 19:10:00 - [20] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Edited by: Grarr Dexx on 03/03/2010 18:21:24 Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: darius mclever 1. this is way too overpowered dps wise. put some RR behind it and it will just eat things alive. 2. you will never get 10 drones on subcaps i guess. why should CCP reintroduce something that they pulled out for performance reasons? 3. 6 mids lol. what would you give the caldari version? 7/8/4? (with 6 launchers) unlike marauders your idea has no weak spots to balance out the power. nice dream. but the balance is just fubar. Inability? Wow, you're a really fast one aren't you? Given most drone modules are mid slot-based, there's nothing wrong with a 6 mid layout. Additionally who said it had to have 6 or 7 TURRET slots - how about only 4 turret slots and have the rest as utility slots for RR or DLA? CCP's inability to effectively optimize performance is obviously going to be an issue but having a whole faction nerfed because of it really sucks. You're a fast one, aren't ya? eh?

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.03.03 20:17:00 - [21] Answer these questions and you'll see why it won't work: Why? (What's it supposed to do besides damage?) Destroyers are traditionally faster/nimbler vessels, why base it on a BS? Compare your answers to the same asked regarding current destroyers: - Because buzzing lights/tacklers are bloody nuisance and needs high tracking/range to swat with prejudice. - Faster/nimbler than cruisers which would be first ship over the 'lights' so fills the gap. If a heavy destroyer was to be introduced I would rather see it based on a cruiser hull and have characteristics similar to the normal dessies with extreme tracking, good damage and good speed/agility but ****-poor tanks. Only problem is that they wouldn't really have any natural/obvious prey so adding them makes little sense
ian666 Lamb Federation Navy	Posted - 2010.03.04 03:02:00 - [22] Edited by: ian666 on 04/03/2010 03:03:02 Originally by: Lone Provider Edited by: Lone Provider on 03/03/2010 18:59:01 Edited by: Lone Provider on 03/03/2010 18:35:28 NEW ISHMOR T2 Battleship Gallente- Hull: Hyperion Class Role: Heavy Destroyer Develepor: CreoDron Following the tradition of Gallente warfare, CreoDron came through with a Heavy Destroyer that deserves attention. Concentrating on Drone power and using similar technologies used in the Ishkur and Ishtar to expand drone bay and drone bandwidth giving the Pilot of this ship the ability to control up to 10 Heavy Drones at once, making this a main and proud addition to any fleet on the battlefield. Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Armor Repair amount and 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level. Heavy Destroyer Skill Bonus: +1 Drone Control and 50 m3 extra Drone Bay space per level Yes \o/ We dont have real (non cap) drone ship in game. We have few with just one bonus to drones, but there is no pure drone ship, able to deal equal amount of damage using only drones as turret ships (1k dps easily, 2k in Vindi case).
HarveyBirdman Esquire	Posted - 2010.03.04 04:30:00 - [23] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Answer these questions and you'll see why it won't work: Why? (What's it supposed to do besides damage?) Destroyers are traditionally faster/nimbler vessels, why base it on a BS? Compare your answers to the same asked regarding current destroyers: - Because buzzing lights/tacklers are bloody nuisance and needs high tracking/range to swat with prejudice. - Faster/nimbler than cruisers which would be first ship over the 'lights' so fills the gap. If a heavy destroyer was to be introduced I would rather see it based on a cruiser hull and have characteristics similar to the normal dessies with extreme tracking, good damage and good speed/agility but ****-poor tanks. Only problem is that they wouldn't really have any natural/obvious prey so adding them makes little sense If only there was something that fits this concept! Something smaller than a battle ship, but larger than a cruiser, that shared attributes of both! Perhaps we could call it a CRUISER BATTLE. Or maybe a BATTLE CRUISER. ITS SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK. -Harvey Birdman, Sarcasm at Law!
Lone Provider	Posted - 2010.03.04 08:47:00 - [24] Originally by: HarveyBirdman Esquire Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Answer these questions and you'll see why it won't work: Why? (What's it supposed to do besides damage?) Destroyers are traditionally faster/nimbler vessels, why base it on a BS? Compare your answers to the same asked regarding current destroyers: - Because buzzing lights/tacklers are bloody nuisance and needs high tracking/range to swat with prejudice. - Faster/nimbler than cruisers which would be first ship over the 'lights' so fills the gap. If a heavy destroyer was to be introduced I would rather see it based on a cruiser hull and have characteristics similar to the normal dessies with extreme tracking, good damage and good speed/agility but ****-poor tanks. Only problem is that they wouldn't really have any natural/obvious prey so adding them makes little sense If only there was something that fits this concept! Something smaller than a battle ship, but larger than a cruiser, that shared attributes of both! Perhaps we could call it a CRUISER BATTLE. Or maybe a BATTLE CRUISER. ITS SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK. -Harvey Birdman, Sarcasm at Law! TBH, as a Drone Pilot, I'd like to see the Myrmidon with no Turret Hardpoints and 125 Mbit/sec Drone Bandwidth instead, if you want Turrets, use the Brutix! I think thats a fair balance. As it stands there are no Battlecruiser Drone Boats.
Cassidy Solo	Posted - 2010.03.14 02:37:00 - [25] Originally by: Lone Provider Originally by: HarveyBirdman Esquire Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Answer these questions and you'll see why it won't work: Why? (What's it supposed to do besides damage?) Destroyers are traditionally faster/nimbler vessels, why base it on a BS? Compare your answers to the same asked regarding current destroyers: - Because buzzing lights/tacklers are bloody nuisance and needs high tracking/range to swat with prejudice. - Faster/nimbler than cruisers which would be first ship over the 'lights' so fills the gap. If a heavy destroyer was to be introduced I would rather see it based on a cruiser hull and have characteristics similar to the normal dessies with extreme tracking, good damage and good speed/agility but ****-poor tanks. Only problem is that they wouldn't really have any natural/obvious prey so adding them makes little sense If only there was something that fits this concept! Something smaller than a battle ship, but larger than a cruiser, that shared attributes of both! Perhaps we could call it a CRUISER BATTLE. Or maybe a BATTLE CRUISER. ITS SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK. -Harvey Birdman, Sarcasm at Law! TBH, as a Drone Pilot, I'd like to see the Myrmidon with no Turret Hardpoints and 125 Mbit/sec Drone Bandwidth instead, if you want Turrets, use the Brutix! I think thats a fair balance. As it stands there are no Battlecruiser Drone Boats. I wouldn't mind seeing a 100Mbit or 125Mbit bandwidth on the Myrm, although if you seriously took away all turret hardpoints, they'd just throw launchers up there, and if you take away launcher hardpoints, what are they even going to do with their high's? You think they need 3-4 drone links for extra range? As far as the person who talked about adding another "destroyer" type ship as a Cruiser-class, puh-lease! How many T2 variants of the Cruisers do we need?! Technically, I don't think we need this additional variant of a BS either, what I would like to see is customizable ships for all classes, like the T3 Cruisers. Again, though, I don't think we really need them, but it would be fun to have.
Serpent Kamri	Posted - 2010.03.14 02:53:00 - [26] Don't you dare touch the Abaddon and not make it a black Khanid torpedo spewing monstrosity with an armor resistance bonus. You have been warned.
ddred	Posted - 2010.03.14 04:15:00 - [27] TBH, if they ever made a variation on the rokh, I'd hold out for one turret slot but one that configures the entire ship into one massive weapon. The thing just looks like a floating cannon. If you put a barrel on the end of it'd look natural. Empress Jamyl's Abaddon with terran weapon vs Rokh with 10,000mm railgun configuartion. Ultima alpha gun. I'm kidding. Tech 2 variants are always nice to hear about, but I'd like to see a role than just a bigger version of something which already exists.
Jerid Verges	Posted - 2010.03.14 04:31:00 - [28] All sub capital 'drone boats' are always outperformed by turret and missile ships in DPS. It's impossible to argue that this is actually going to 'imbalance' the game. Right now there is no ship that uses drones as a primary weapon. I'd like to see one. It's horrible that the only thing you can put on a Dominix drone boat are Nuets in the highs. I want to see those carrier modules able to be fitted onto the BS.
Cassidy Solo	Posted - 2010.03.14 07:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Jerid Verges All sub capital 'drone boats' are always outperformed by turret and missile ships in DPS. It's impossible to argue that this is actually going to 'imbalance' the game. Right now there is no ship that uses drones as a primary weapon. I'd like to see one. It's horrible that the only thing you can put on a Dominix drone boat are Nuets in the highs. I want to see those carrier modules able to be fitted onto the BS. Well, you already mentioned it. The Dominix uses drones as a primary weapon. In fact, many ships use them as a PRIMARY weapon (IE, most of the damage.) but most ships also allow you to use other weapons. When you have an Ishtar who's damage is 70% drones, that is it's primary weapon.
RabbitofDoom	Posted - 2010.03.14 12:30:00 - [30] Yes its kinda hard to find a niche for new t2 design. I kinda like flagship idea. It could provide a command ship role for a large battleship fleet where standard comand ships are slowly starting to be to weak ehp wise to withstand such massive focused dps. For a tier 2 bc t2 maybe we could get something more ecm centric. Like biger more strudy versions of current ecm boats. For caldari Dragon 5% bonus to ecm strenght 5% shield resistance Role bonus +80% ecm range T2ecm boat %5 to missile damage and explosion velocity Missile boat Ammar Judge 10% drone damage, hitpoints, repair amount. 5%armor resitances Role bonus 100% tracking disruptor,tracking link range. Drone boat t2 ewar bc 5% traking ling,disruptor strenght Gallente Assimar 5% hybrid damage 7% propulsion jamming mods range. Role bonus 100% sensor dampener range, remote sensor booster T2 ewar skill 5% armor hp Minmatar Sieckle 5% hybrid damage 5% web str. Role bonus +1 prop jamming str T2 ewar bs skill 10% to TP effieciency and range



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.