EVE Search - What's needed to fix Destroyers?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

What's needed to fix Destroyers?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Daergaar Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.09 18:59:00 - [1] I was wondering, what does the crowd here in Ships and Modules think Destroyers need to be viable PvP and PvE ships? Right now I don't see many used outside of salvaging. Here's my suggestions: 1. Rate of Fire penalty needs to go. Not sure why it's there, since the ship is already gimped by a weak tank on top of this. 2. They should be faster than cruisers, but slower than frigates with agility close to a frigate. Right now there are plenty of cruisers that are faster than destroyers.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:01:00 - [2] A role. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Guillame Herschel Gallente NME1	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:09:00 - [3] Destroyers as a class aren't bad at all, but the Thrasher is so good, there's little point in using the others apart from salvaging. -- Sent from my douchePhone using Look@MEEEEE!
omgfreemoniez	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:17:00 - [4] Minmatar nerf, same as other ship classes.
Allestin Villimar Zebra Corp	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:31:00 - [5] Personally they ought to be the best anti-frig in the game but slightly more vulnerable to medium weapon systems. Right now they're kind of like sniper frigates. Bonuses should be on target tracking/explosion velocity, sensor strength (worse than inties but better than everything else), and a 25% or 50% role bonus to small weapon damage. They'd be hard to fit a good tank on and have a sig size somewhere between a frigate and a cruiser (which is basically where they are right now). ...in bed.
Footoo Rama Gallente Cast-a-Ways.	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:36:00 - [6] Originally by: Allestin Villimar Personally they ought to be the best anti-frig in the game but slightly more vulnerable to medium weapon systems. Right now they're kind of like sniper frigates. Bonuses should be on target tracking/explosion velocity, sensor strength (worse than inties but better than everything else), and a 25% or 50% role bonus to small weapon damage. They'd be hard to fit a good tank on and have a sig size somewhere between a frigate and a cruiser (which is basically where they are right now). You mean what they are right now? except they get range bonuses instead of tracking? They do not need a dmg bump they have to many high slots, and the eat frigs. They do need a buff to the tank, but adding an extra med/low would really op them. Perhaps just an 10% hp buff and loose 5% sig radius? ------- "Because the Dominix is the Chuck Norris of Eve!"
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.09.09 19:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Tippia A role. Short and to the point They need to be focused a bit more. Originally by: Daergaar 1. Rate of Fire penalty needs to go. Because having Destroyers that outdamage cruisers is a Good ThingÖ (Coercer already hits 300dps@6km) Originally by: Daergaar 2. They should be faster than cruisers Yes but not by much, they are currently about same speed so 20-25% increase should suffice. Should be through mass decrease so it is only applicable when using propulsion mod, also adds needed agility. Thrasher: Decide whether it should be AC or Arty. The current optimal bonus is arty but a falloff bonus would help both AC and arty. Otherwise perfect. Coercer: Apart from the one midslot it is actually pretty good .. with more speed it should do nicely. Perhaps make a gun slot to utility and add it as a mid (loss of 12.5% damage is "fair" for a tackle slot I think) Cormorant: Could use a second low, perhaps same trick as with Coercer and making a gun into a utility. Catalyst: Has inexplicable 50/50 bonus to optimal/falloff .. choose one or the other. Add a drone. PS: Cormorant and Catalyst are both wildcards until we know what happens to hybrids. We may well end up with both rocking hard with rails/blasters respectively once the inevitable buff comes. PPS: Would love for them to have fewer turrets but larger damage bonuses, frigate guns are bloody expensive these days
Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.09.09 20:12:00 - [8] Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 09/09/2010 20:12:58 My idea for destroyers is this Remove 2 High Slots and the ROF penalty add 1 low to the Cormerant and Catalyst 1 Mid to the Thrasher and Coercer Boost there buffer to cruiser size, About 3000 base HP not counting resists.(There about the same size anyway) They will be unable to defend agaist cruisers but will pwn most frigs! My 2 ISK -- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist
Bernard Schuyler	Posted - 2010.09.09 20:37:00 - [9] My personal suggestion based purely on role? They should get a 99% reduction in the CPU costs of Expanded Probe Launchers. They should be Combat Probe ships. Maybe it isn't balanced, but there is a role.
Arbiter Reformed Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.09.09 20:59:00 - [10] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida We may well end up with both rocking hard with rails/blasters respectively once the inevitable buff comes. lol are you new here?

SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.09.09 21:04:00 - [11] Originally by: Alara IonStorm Remove 2 High Slots Yes, awesome idea. Let's take away the only role it currently has (salvageboat), that's bound to have positive effects! __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever..
Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.09.09 21:09:00 - [12] Originally by: SFX Bladerunner Originally by: Alara IonStorm Remove 2 High Slots Yes, awesome idea. Let's take away the only role it currently has (salvageboat), that's bound to have positive effects! Buy a salvage cane and stop pinching penies! -- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist
Psiri	Posted - 2010.09.09 21:18:00 - [13] My beef with Destroyers consists of mainly two things, 1) Out of the four Destroyers it's only the Thrasher which is worthwhile using for PvP, for obvious reasons. 2) T2 fitted destroyers cost too much in comparison to Assault Ships, especially after the changes to insurance. Assault Frigates essentially do the same job as Destroyers, only better in many regards. A large portion of the cost comes from the numerous turrets onboard. I'd like to see Destroyers given the style of Marauders, ie. a 50% damage boost but with the number of turrets cut in half (naturally highslots, grid etc would have to be adjusted to accomendate the change).
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2010.09.09 23:41:00 - [14] In fleet fights frigates aren't that useful anymore. They die too fast. There isn't a 'kill frigates' role in a fleet. Given half decent conditions any of the DPS ships of the fleet should be able to give frigs a tough time. And solo destroyers aren't really awful considering their cost, but their are better options. If you think destroyers should have a role in fleet beyond light dictors you either need to find a bonus for them that involves fighting other things than frigates, or you need to buff frigates incredibly to make them more viable in fleet fights.
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.10 02:56:00 - [15] I am reminded again of the More Slots less power per slot philosophy that eve should have. Add slots to the Dessy`s but make them More extra Tackle slots....In reality Tackle is Ewar and in a FLeet the smaller ships are designed to hinder the big ones and make them vulnerable to your fleet, With such a small number where you have to chose between Gank tank or Tackle Tackle will lose. They need to make all Dessy`s like the Nightmare or Dram half the wep slots but a 100% bonus to DMG and only leave them the 1 utility Hi, More mids more Lows. 1 Mid is a useless ship unless in a gang which at that point they will bring a BC if they have tackle support, so it makes them useless. More Slots for smaller ships but a Tad more Grid/CPU so they cant abuse it. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
d00m2	Posted - 2010.09.10 03:14:00 - [16] More than 1 midslot
Artemis Rose Clandestine Vector	Posted - 2010.09.10 04:14:00 - [17] Make the other three races better to compete with the Thrasher. Repeat for the interdictors as well. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats
Goose99	Posted - 2010.09.10 04:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Artemis Rose Make the other three races better to compete with the Thrasher. Repeat for the interdictors as well. ^This
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.09.10 06:39:00 - [19] Destroyers should be to frigates what BC are to cruisers. K.I.S.S. - keep it short and simple. There's no reason to have a ROF penalty when you can limit high slots instead. It doesn't make sense. An alpha-strike geared destroyer class is geared to Minmatar anyways. Simply give destroyers five turrets rather then 7 and add the normal frigate gun bonus. Or however many turrets is appropriate to keep their DPS the same.... All BC have the same signature radius - make this the same for all destroyers as well. Insert your arbitrary number here. For me it would be 50m - 60m. Take the two high slots that were subtracted from the destroyers and add them back on as mids or lows as called for by race. I would like to see destroyers get up to around 15k-20k EHP when tanked. Certain AFs can get up to 15k EHP so this isn't unreasonable. Lose the range bonus. That should be reserved for the "sniper" AF and would serve to differentiate the two more. Give the destroyers a third bonus that's either race dependent - or a tracking bonus for anti-frig work. (third bonus - BC get to use command modules as theirs.) Adjust fittings!!! Good grief!
Daergaar Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.10 06:51:00 - [20] Maybe they could get a big bonus to webs (range and speed reduction) to further aid in the Frigate killing "role"(lol) but also to be able to slow down bigger fast ships like Hurricanes while staying under their tracking with a small sig radius and high speed, or keeping them out of optimal with 40km webs.

Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.09.10 08:49:00 - [21] Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 10/09/2010 08:49:33 Originally by: Daergaar Maybe they could get a big bonus to webs (range and speed reduction) to further aid in the Frigate killing "role"(lol) but also to be able to slow down bigger fast ships like Hurricanes while staying under their tracking with a small sig radius and high speed, or keeping them out of optimal with 40km webs. That would take from the Minmatar Electronic Attack Ship and Recons. Plus Web Bonuses are not really needed as destroyer guns do not have major tracking issues. What they need is a tank relative to there size and a slot layout change, possibly work on there bonuses. -- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist
Kizahhan	Posted - 2010.09.10 09:46:00 - [22] More shield/tank and get rid of the rate of fire penalty ( like the OP said ) 1 extra mid or low depending on race. This or make navy versions.
Akisawa Caldari Path Of The Cursed	Posted - 2010.09.10 11:28:00 - [23] We already got plenty of antifrig platforms tbh. So far IMO the best idea was to make Destroyers as mini-Marauders Less weapons, more bonuses, more tank. Basically making it a great noob platform to level 1-3s with. Because currently transition from frigate to cruiser for noobs is quite hard, with al the weapon trainings included. --- Improving my day by ruining yours
FT Diomedes Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.10 14:06:00 - [24] Edited by: FT Diomedes on 10/09/2010 14:12:25 A lot of people seem to be missing the boat here. The problem with destroyers is that they are not very noob-friendly when it comes to fitting them and not very useful compared to other ships once you have the SP to support them. 1. Leave their gun slots alone. They LOOK awesome with lots of guns - especially the Catalyst. One of my greatest joys in Eve was running L1 and 2 missions with my Catalyst. This was when I thought 1 million ISK was a lot of money and 3 million SP was a lot of SP. The problem was that by the time I could fit and use it at all effectively, I could fly any number of ships that were 10000x better. 2. Give them some more fitting ability. It should be EASY with maxed skills to fit them with the maximum number of the largest T2 frigate class weapons and a MWD and a Medium Shield Extender II - with no fitting mods required. That would make them more noob friendly. It would also mean that in the hands of a veteran player, they could perform an effective role. The limited slot layout they currently have would remain the same and keep them from being overpowered. 3. Leave everything else the same. Something like this fit should be possible with maxed skills. Perhaps add a mid for tackle, but this doesn't seem unreasonable or overpowered to me: [Catalyst, Dio's Catalyst] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II 1MN MicroWarpdrive II Medium Shield Extender II 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Small Core Defence Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x1 --- This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne
maxcarrion	Posted - 2010.09.10 15:08:00 - [25] Personally I think the best way to regain interest in the destroyer class is to give it a real niche. I think the existing destroyers need to stay (possibly with some tweaks) as they are invaluable salvage ships and a T2 salvage version should be made as per a dozen other threads. However a new tier 2 destroyer that really does the job of AAA for a fleet would be great. So, here are my thoughts on how to do that. 4 Turret slots with 100% damage bonus (role bonus). 1 Utility High 3 Mid slots (+-1 caldari/amarr) 3 Low slots (+-1 amarr/caldari) Weight û almost cruiser level Speed û slow frig base ~250m/s Sig Radius û almost cruiser level EHP û base about same as combat cruiser Pg ûhigh for a frig Cpu ûhigh for a frig Sensor Res û almost Inty level Locking range û high Align/Warp û As AF Destroyer bonus +20% range and tracking of x small turret type per level +30% range of warp scrambler per level Estimated typical fitting (v. good û perfect fitting skills û Gallente pvp example) 4 tier 3 T2 rails, small nos 1 scram + 1 web + 1 Tracking comp 1 Gyro Stab + DC2 + EANM Estimated stats (pulled from the top of my head so they might be way out as IÆve not done much sniping but itÆs what IÆm thinking as the final results for all those bonuses) 100dps @80km (long range T2 ammo) 200dps @40km (short range faction ammo) Scram out to 23KM before overheat! 20k ehp Major racial difference Mini + 20% base speed Amarr +25% base capacitor Gallente 30M3 drone bay 10M3 drone bandwidth Caldari nothing, or something clearly useless like signal strength making them clearly the worst as usual/traditional (OK so IÆm a bitter caldari pilot) Why? The tier 2 destroyers provide long range anti frigate firepower in a primarily defensive capacity, their long range, high tracking and long range scram allow them to shut down and destroy tacklers among the fleet with great efficiency and their fast lock times and long range scram makes them excellent on gate camps and defending against stealth bombers, interceptors, fighters, bombers, drones and even dramiels. With the weight of a cruiser and the grid of a frig the tier 2 destroyers are almost completely incapable of fitting efficient propulsion mods (10MN MWD right out, 10MN AB possible with max skills but with significant turret sacrifices), with a large sig radius and fairly low top speeds cruisers and especially BCs will find a destroyer to be little more than a light snack. Frigate class capacitor and PG leaves active tanking and plate/extenders as a weak option and trends the destroyers towards resistance + base tank which wonÆt match a cruiser alone but works extremely well with RR support demonstrating this as a gang/fleet ship far more than a solo vessel (a common use for the utility high might be to add a small or even medium NOS and leech off a ship that youÆre escorting to keep the guns and scrambler running longer). This ship could be an excellent escort especially for cap ships, sniper HAC gangs, Drake gangs and gate camps. Alternatively with the exceptional scan res and utility high one of these destroyers can cloak next to a bait ship and use the long range scram to cut out MWD as an escape option for someone kiting the bait, a nasty shock for the nano-cane that picks a fight with a HAM drake. A tech 2 ôstealth hunterö version of the tier 2 would be great but thatÆs a discussion for another thread YMMV obviously all stats untested and further research into typical stats might yield more balanced numbers
Celestine Santora	Posted - 2010.09.10 15:14:00 - [26] You know I'd like to come in here and crap on destroyers but then I remembered that like 75% of all my frig losses are to thrashers
Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.09.10 15:43:00 - [27] Originally by: maxcarrion A tech 2 ôstealth hunterö version of the tier 2 would be great but thatÆs a discussion for another thread I like your idea's for changing the destroyer but I can not support this, and I have a good reason! Those AFK Cloaker Whiners who make long threads in the wrong section forum. Once they Biomass themselves I am for it! Whiney B*tchs! -- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist
Mavnas	Posted - 2010.09.10 16:01:00 - [28] I think the idea of a combat probe ship sounded best. I've played around with a destroyer fitted out with probes and it was great for exploring high-sec mag/radar sites that had a few NPCs or easy combat sites that just aren't worthwhile otherwise, but without the actual probing bonuses that the probing frigate gets, it's just annoying to scan down large numbers of sites. Though, if you went this route it might make sense to have 4 new destroyers to fill this role or a new T2 cov-ops ships with a destroyer hull instead of a frig. Having used destroyers extensively early on for T1/2 missions I can easily say the range bonus is very noob-friendly and to a large extent makes up for the weak tank. The large number of high slots makes the destroyer good for salvage afterwards. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply add more PG/CPU to make destroyers easy to fit for the players likely to be flying them as anything other than salvage boats (low-SP low-level mission running noobs).
Ravenesa The Bastards	Posted - 2010.09.10 16:06:00 - [29] Destroyers have a role. It is called Hulkageddon.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.09.10 17:18:00 - [30] Originally by: FT Diomedes 3. Leave everything else the same. I agree with everything but this. The Coercer has 1 mid slot, and needs at least two. Give them all another slot (mid or low, obviously), and make them a bit smaller (sig radius) and faster (velocity/agility). -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.