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

Religous Reclaimer47	Posted - 2010.09.10 17:30:00 - [31] Best IDea so far is From Storm, Nightmare/Marauder them out and Halve the number of guns with a 100% DMG Bonus and redistro the other slots you save, leaving 1-2 utility Hi`s Dont ruin Destroyers by making them salvagers lol If they must make a T2 make them a SuperCap Attacker/Bomber Like a Anti Fighter Bomber...YARRR
Daergaar Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.10 20:08:00 - [32] Edited by: Daergaar on 10/09/2010 20:09:55 I really like the "mini Marauder" idea. In that role, the layout would be like this: ->8 high slots (with 6 turret/launcher hardpoints). Remove ROF penalty. 2 of the slots would be utility slots (meant for a salvager and tractor). -> +1 mid or low slots (ie: Comorant could use a 2nd low for example). Increase cargohold. -> Ship bonuses for weapon range and resists (+5% per level) and role bonus for tractor beam range and velocity. No bonus damage since damage should stay close to currently (which it would with 2 less guns but no RoF penalty).
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2010.09.10 20:15:00 - [33] Missiles! I want missiles on my Cormorant. What's a better anti-frig weapon than a bunch of eight light missile launchers?
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.10 20:42:00 - [34] Yea Daeg thats exactly what my IDea was, Mini Maraudr, except I say give 2 extra low/mid slots. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
Schalac Caldari Apocalypse Reign	Posted - 2010.09.10 21:02:00 - [35] Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role? SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN
Daergaar Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.10 22:00:00 - [36] Originally by: Schalac Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role? Because a bunch of other ship types or specific ships usurp that role, and frigates aren't too common in big fleets. It's like other ships are saying, "Anything you can do, I can do better! I can do anything better than you!" to the Destroyer class as a whole.
FT Diomedes Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.11 00:25:00 - [37] I thought about it some more today. Destroyers should have three roles: 1. PvP - they lack a defined role in PvP that some other ship class cannot do better. I propose giving them one. 2. PvE - Level 1 and Level 2 missions - the problem is they are too hard to fit for most new players. 3. Salvaging - they currently excel at this role Here is what I think is needed: 1. Leave them with lots of gun slots. I don't like the idea of mini-marauders. The 7-8 gun configurations look cool. The high ammo, cost, and cap usage of more guns helps keep them from being overpowered (which is necessary if my biggest change was implemented). The ROF penalty has to stay. It also helps with the salvaging role to have more high slots, which I think is an important tertiary role for them. 2. As I suggested above, give them lots more fitting room. This makes them easier for new players to use effectively - and makes them more effective at PvP. Also, add one mid to Amarr and Gallente. Add one low to Caldari and Minmatar. 3. Give them the ability to fit a new module. This module would be called the Anti-Cloaking Pulse Emitter. It could only be fitted on Destroyer class ships. It would be a mid or high slot module (not sure which). It would have an area of effect approximately 15-30 km (not sure what is balanced). It could be used in any security status space, but it would trigger Concord if it hits a cloaked neutral in high sec. When activated, it would send out a pulse that deactivated all cloaks within its area of effect. The effect lasts for 15 seconds. It would take a lot of cap to use the module (e.g. takes maxed skills ship with no cap mods from 100% to 35%). The module could only be reactivated at 75% cap. During the cycle time of the module, the ship using it cannot move (like a cyno ship). The module also takes LO, strontium or some other fuel to activate it. The ship has a fuel bay. This gives fleets some defense against Stealth Bombers and Cov Ops warp-in ships. It gives gangs a way to catch cloaked haulers at gates. --- 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
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.09.11 06:43:00 - [38] Originally by: FT Diomedes I thought about it some more today. Destroyers should have three roles:... Why three? The T2 version (Interdictors) has one role/purpose - bubbling. Destroyers main problem is that they don't really excel at any one thing, frigate popping quickly becomes destroyer popping if any other ship is present. Destroyers already work beautifully in PvP. - They munch most frigs and get stomped by bigger fish. - They have near cruiser level damage and can have the tanks of a damage fitted AF. The visuals are probably not going to change at all if a Marauder gun scheme is used, the latest iterations (ie. faction ships) look like porcupines even if they only have a few guns - and with frigate guns costing 500k-1M a pop ammo cost can hardly be factored in as a balancing element (my DLP Coercer costs 15-16M!). Increasing fittings does two things: Introduce ludicrously oversized tanks thus disturbing the fragile small-ship balance and bleed the new player dry of ISK (expensive to fit remember). By increasing speed slightly and perhaps reducing signatures they become extremely viable in all manner of engagements .. If we want them in fleet scenarios to clear tackle then perhaps a 2/3rds Interceptor bonus (-10% MWD sig bloom/level) to increase their lifespan when zooming around.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.09.11 15:55:00 - [39] Edited by: Fistme on 11/09/2010 15:56:14 I think that there are lots of good ideas being tossed around in this thread. The idea that i like the most so far is to give destroyers a reduction to fitting probe launchers. I don't think that this simple change will be enough overall to reballence destroyers so I would like to see either a fitting increase (both a slot and grid/cpu) for each ship or a reduction to sig/mass to allow for more survivablity. I also think that the catalyst should be able to field 10m3 with a 20m3 bay of drones giving it a unique roll that none of the other destroyers can fill.
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.09.11 16:15:00 - [40] some things i would change about destroyers 1- GET RID OF THE -25% ROF PENALTY 2- boost the catalyst fitting so it can fit neutron blaster + 200mm plate or ion blaster + 400mm plate with a mwd. change the 50% optimal bonus to a 50% falloff bonus 3- move 1 low of the coercer to a mid adjust fitting again for tackle mwd full rack of guns + some sort of a tank. 4- move 1 mid of the cormorant to a low change the 10% optimal per level to a 5% damage per level, enough grid to fit 150mm rails + mwd + other mods sensor booster DC mfs etc no need the grid for the tank since its a sniper anyway 5- give the trasher the grid to fit 280mm+ mwd+ other non tank mod TE TC gyro sebo etc, change the 50% optimal bonus to a 50% falloff bonus. to consider after this a 25% boost to the base speed of all the destroyer or a sig radius decrease on all the destroyer.

1600 RT	Posted - 2010.09.11 16:26:00 - [41] Introduce another tier of destroyer. 1-minmatar destroyer with 4/4 split weapons and 7,5% rof bonus to both missile and guns, 15mb of drones, slot layout 8-3-2. 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2. 3-gallente destroyer 5 turrets and 25mb of drones 5% to hybrid damage 10% to drone speed per level slot layout 6-3-3 no launchers. 4-amarr destroyer 7 turret, 5% damage and 5% resist bonus, slot layout 8-2-3 but the main point is new shiny hull in game
Psiri	Posted - 2010.09.11 18:46:00 - [42] Originally by: Schalac Destroyers will kill any frig sized ship in the game with ease. How is that not a role? I want what this guy has been smoking.
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2010.09.11 20:10:00 - [43] Originally by: 1600 RT 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2. I want one, where do I send the ISK?
Henri Rearden Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2010.09.11 20:47:00 - [44] Edited by: Henri Rearden on 11/09/2010 20:48:53 I think tending towards less change than more is probably a good policy. There seem to be pretty universal complaints about destroyers - they lack a slot (mid or low, depending) and they need some fitting love without allowing crazy tanks. What an obvious solution! Add the appropriate slots and give a weapon fitting bonus. That way they'll retain the high-end frigate tank, pick up some dps/range for high sp players and make it possible for noobs to fit them, and be able to universally fit a scram/distruptor. If it were me, I would change things as others have suggested here and there, like giving the caldari destroyer bonuses/stats which allow it to fit more standard missile launchers, etc. but that's not necessary to change the class. I think a mild speed bump and slight reduction in sig radius (not too much) would make them very handy, but probably not OP. EDIT: Oh yeah, give the Thrasher and Catalyst bonuses to falloff rather than optimal.
FT Diomedes Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.11 23:42:00 - [45] Taking away bonuses to optimal takes away the long range option, which is nice for PvE and fills another role in PvP. That's why I don't mind a bonus to both optimal range AND fall-off. Makes them useable with short or long range weapons. --- 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
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.11 23:47:00 - [46] There's no need to fix destroyers. There IS a need to fix the coercer and the commorant... A blanket buff to dessies just means better thrashers.
ShadoJak	Posted - 2010.09.12 09:04:00 - [47] Originally by: Daergaar think Destroyers need to be viable a) you're just ignorant since they're fine. It's the clueless that are the problem. ------------------------------------- Walking in stations ==> -10 standings Painting your ship ==> +10 standings
Zhilia Mann Tide Way Out Productions	Posted - 2010.09.12 16:45:00 - [48] Originally by: 1600 RT Introduce another tier of destroyer. 1-minmatar destroyer with 4/4 split weapons and 7,5% rof bonus to both missile and guns, 15mb of drones, slot layout 8-3-2. 2-caldari destroyer with 8 missile launchers, bonus to kinetic damage and missile precision slot layout 8-3-2. 3-gallente destroyer 5 turrets and 25mb of drones 5% to hybrid damage 10% to drone speed per level slot layout 6-3-3 no launchers. 4-amarr destroyer 7 turret, 5% damage and 5% resist bonus, slot layout 8-2-3 but the main point is new shiny hull in game Umm. Yes. Let's create exactly the same imbalance in the destroyer class that is already universally lamented in the BC class. That sounds like awesome purified into a delicious elixir that smells of pomegranate. But shiny new destroyer hulls would be nice. But maybe we should try to fix the existing ones first before adding more. A drone ship for Gallente and a -- I hate to say this -- rocket ship for Caldari would make good sense. Your proposed microphoon might sneak by as a very niche alternative to the Thrasher, but it already works quite well so meh. But the problem always comes back to Amarr -- how exactly do you introduce another hull without obsoleting one or the other? Resists would be loltastic on a destroyer, but a pure damage bonus would pretty much mean the Coercer would never be the first choice for anything. Or maybe I'm just rambling; I've never been a fan of the ship class as a whole in the first place.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.09.12 17:39:00 - [49] The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important. It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings - The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think.
Draku Rykenen Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.09.12 17:41:00 - [50] Destroyers (mostly the Thrasher) are awesome. They are just so specialized that it renders them outmoded in the vast majority of situations. If you lock a frig in range it's most often game over for him though..So, do one thing very well is the story of the Destroyer in EVE. A fairly easy fit and pump out an ~1800 damage volley from an arty thrasher leaving most frigs dead or very close in an instant. Of course you are waiting ~8 secs to fire again, so make it count or consider running. If you want your corp mates to hate you, fit a SeBo and a tracking comp and and see how few people get in on frig kill mails, lol. Of course, being a glass cannon, one hit wonder is all that great, but how do you boost a ship/class without OP'ing it unless you remove the specialization? If you had better defenses (tank or speed) no frig would ever stand a chance, cruisers might even fear you at that point. The only thing I could imagine might be viable would be to and defense via circumventable ewar, with some mild bonuses, or perhaps a small web bonus. The fit the role of "Fleet Frigate Defense" a TP bonus or web bonus seems proper. A second idea might be a Tracking Disruptor bonus, allowing a destroyer to operate more freely within the fleet environment by reducing the threat of enemy cruisers while it does it's job of frig killing.

Verizons	Posted - 2010.09.12 17:48:00 - [51] To address the COST to FIT Cut the amount of turrets in 1/2 and give the destroyers role bonus of 100% damage to their factions turret/launcher. This will free up some extra cash since 8x Tech II can cost more than the ship itself. Give them a 5% bonus per lvl to armor/shield resistances to address the lack of tankable fits. Do this and you have something that stands up to assault ships but will probablys till take more damage.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.09.12 20:18:00 - [52] Originally by: Draku Rykenen The only thing I could imagine might be viable would be to and defense via circumventable ewar, with some mild bonuses, or perhaps a small web bonus. The fit the role of "Fleet Frigate Defense" a TP bonus or web bonus seems proper. Personally, I'll stick with: Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed. That's more useful than either in my book. Quote: A second idea might be a Tracking Disruptor bonus, allowing a destroyer to operate more freely within the fleet environment by reducing the threat of enemy cruisers while it does it's job of frig killing. Or y'know, maybe lowering the signature radius to be nearer a frigate than a cruiser, so they're less vulnerable to cruiser guns?
Draku Rykenen Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.09.12 22:07:00 - [53] I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class. As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards. Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO.
Daergaar Caldari	Posted - 2010.09.13 00:33:00 - [54] Originally by: Draku Rykenen I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class. As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards. Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO. It's already good at killing frigates, but it dies way too easily to cruisers as others have said. A Destroyer should not be able to wreck cruisers, but it should be able to survive more than a few seconds.
Opertone Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.09.13 01:13:00 - [55] destroyer is something like cruiser compared to battlecruiser. A high power gun boat, designed for combat purposes, but with small highly accurate long range guns. What destroyer needs is cruiser like hit points and resistances. Basically, destroyers should be much weaker than cruisers. So one class could challenge another, only weapons that differ. Cruisers can have E-War, Logistics, Scout/Tackle, Damage role. Destroyers only gunboat Damage role. Destroyers must have more hitpoints than frigates, comparable to those of cruisers. Main HP aspect should be much higher than other. Cormorant should have at least 3000 hitpoints on shield while a lot less on armor 750 hps.
Opertone Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.09.13 01:19:00 - [56] Originally by: James Lyrus The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important. It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings - The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think. quoted for truth Hitpoints is what destroyers need. Similar to Drake vs Caracal, a lot more aspect on shield and missiles. GUNs/shields, not much for tackle, e-war or speed. For reference even T1 caracals may fit sensor damps, jammers, target painters to be useful before get targeted. Then it's over since caracals are paper thin.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.09.13 10:00:00 - [57] Originally by: Opertone Originally by: James Lyrus The problem with destroyers is not their firepower - they actually have a lot, given their range and tracking, which - when zapping frigates - tends to be more important. It's really that they have the EHP and fittings of a frigate, with the speed and signature of a cruiser. That means destroyers are trivially easy to kill, to anything cruiser sized, which is why they're massively unpopular - you just can't survive long enough to be useful. A Cormorant on 90m signature (more if you fit shield extenders/rigs) doing 1500m/sec on MWD makes a very nice easy target for a cruiser gun. In my opinion, that needs cutting back quite a chunk - it's ok to be 'cruiser speed' because they shouldn't be after than frigates, but they should still have 'largeish frigate' scale signatures, because they still have frigate sized fittings - The other problem with them is fitting space - because of the nature of the ships, toting 50% more guns than a frigate would, they have a considerably harder time fitting higher tier weapons. So a shade more powergrid and CPU wouldn't go amiss I think. quoted for truth Hitpoints is what destroyers need. Similar to Drake vs Caracal, a lot more aspect on shield and missiles. GUNs/shields, not much for tackle, e-war or speed. For reference even T1 caracals may fit sensor damps, jammers, target painters to be useful before get targeted. Then it's over since caracals are paper thin. You're underrating Caracals quite a bit there - they're actually pretty survivable if you fly them right, thanks to their really very impressive engagement ranges. I mean, 126km with heavy missiles, 60km with assault launchers? That means you can stay well clear of a lot of 'threats' - you simply don't need the kind of tank a blaster ship would. Cormorant... can actually do quite an impressive range, but is seriously crippled by fittings at that point. And is still ... probably about as fast as a Caracal, with a lot less buffer/cap.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.09.13 10:16:00 - [58] Originally by: Draku Rykenen I wouldn't think you would have to remove the tracking bonus to improve the class. As for sig radius, I just prefer a bonus that allows the destroyer pilot to overcome his risk, not inherently lower it. The ship does do it's primary job very well. Make it too easy and the frig pilots will be asking for boosts afterwards. Give the pilot a WAY to be more effective not a passive guarantee IMO. Problem is, TDs are also pretty potent vs. frigates - a destroyer already out ranges, out tracks and outdamages frigates, and you want to give it a module that lets it cut gun ranges in half, or tracking in half? But the problem isn't a _single_ cruiser, it's that if there are several cruisers in the field, it only takes a volley or two from one of them to pop your destroyer. That's thanks to your cruiser grade mobility/signature and frigate sized hitpoints. On the fittings point - fittings don't need a massive boost, but I would really like to see the Cormorant able to fit 150mm rails - as it stands, it needs a fitting mod to get the rack of weapons, let along the other grid hungry mods it could really do with - like a propulsion mod for starters. MSE should require sacrificing 'top tier' weapons to fit, but as it stands ... you just can't fit 150s to a Cormorant So your 'MSE' tradeoff is whether you're fitting 125s or 75s. That's about 89 grid with max fitting skills, which would be 72 or so base, rather than the 55 it gets currently.
Redoubti Amarr Strategic Insanity	Posted - 2010.09.13 20:01:00 - [59] Has anyone tried using them as a capital/battleship escort against heavy drones and fighters?
Proxyyyy Caldari Chaotic Tranquility	Posted - 2010.09.13 20:26:00 - [60] Lower sig raduis might be kool, but you still wouldnt use them in fleets (T1 frigate or interceptor would be better for that). Anyways, those who dont use them now, still wont use them, even if they did have a reduced sig. Destroyers seem to be able to theyre jobs, as they are now.

Gedid Tava Gallente The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost	Posted - 2010.09.13 20:31:00 - [61] I see it in two possible parts. Targets and Roles. Some idle thoughts. Targets, currently, are frigates and some weak cruisers. If destroyers are assumed to be the BC of the frigate world then shouldn't they be able to hunt both down and up a class? BC are comfortable against on cruisers, BC and bs. Where this would fall apart with dessies is the swath of T2 combat cruiser hulls that are not really reflected in the battleship classes. However, if a destroyer could be competitive against frigs through T1 cruisers then that may help a lot. How to do this? I can't say. Alternatively, looking at destroyer's for purely same class and lower, I'm thinking of the overlap that so many ships bring with a 25m3+ drone bays. I don't know many people that, when asked "how do you deal with frigs" simply respond "Warrior IIs". Off the top of my head I see two alternatives. 1) Give them a totally different role. There are a lot of good suggestions. I'll add "maybe a command link". Just a thought. 2) I'd considered a wide scale drone bay nerf for non-droneboats but, instead, create a hull-class based restriction on drone control. Like Rigs, limit small to frig/dessie, medium to cruiser/bc and large to bs. You'd still keep the dps balance ideals and it creates more value for anti-frigate platforms. The problem there would be in making frigates frustrating and dangerous hunters that, with sig radius and speed on their side, will start getting a lot of kills vs ships that simply can't hit them. So that's a down side. Maybe limit it to non-droneboat flagged ships but that puts a weird anti-frig race bonus for Gallente. If it actually happened, EVE players would scream but adapt. Like how so many people roll with microwarps or the aformentioned Warrior IIs
Veliria	Posted - 2010.09.13 20:48:00 - [62] Coercer needs a midslot more for PvP viability, and I feel their sig radius should be dropped to be only slightly above that of frigates. That way when they DO come up against something other than a frigate they won't instantly vaporize due to sig radius alone. That or remove the Rate of Fire penalty so they can be better glass cannons.
EFT Worrier	Posted - 2010.09.13 22:24:00 - [63] Agree with several other posters about cutting the number of turrets down to 6 and removing the ROF penalty - it's a major turnoff. This IMO is the single biggest reason destroyers aren't used more - the psychological association of the ROF penalty with poor performance. As long as destroyers remain as frigate-class ships, and are universally slower and/or less agile than frigates, then frigates won't be overly impacted.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.09.13 22:48:00 - [64] Originally by: EFT Worrier Edited by: EFT Worrier on 13/09/2010 22:33:07 Agree with several other posters about cutting the number of turrets down to 6 and removing the ROF penalty - it's a major turnoff. This IMO is the single biggest reason destroyers aren't used more - the psychological association of the ROF penalty with poor performance. As long as destroyers remain as frigate-class ships, and are universally slower and/or less agile than frigates, then frigates won't be overly impacted. I think adding a second destroyer hull for each race would also make players take the destroyer class a bit more seriously. You could even remake one of the existing frigate hulls into a destroyer; there are too many frigates really. Personally, I'd _much_ rather have 8 guns of volley damage, on top of 6 guns worth of DPS, than the other way around. You may be right in how that's a turn off, but making a ship -worse- because perceptions are skewed isn't the way to approach it. As for adding a ship? What would that fix? I mean with BCs it only helped because the tier 2s are bordering on overpowered - and people still don't fly the tier 1s at all. Lets fix what we got first.
VanNostrum	Posted - 2010.09.14 09:11:00 - [65] Some frigs with AB are faster than destroyers with MWD, this is a huge problem. Destroyers already have high signatures to begin with and an AB speed bonus, like the one they tried on AFs on singularity, could be viable on destroyers. High signature and low tank currently makes them perfect cruiser appetizers. Oh, and catalyst needs 1 more mid slot. No ship in this day and age can actually kill another without a scram/disruptor, how is a 1 mid slot ship called a "destroyer"?
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2010.09.14 09:19:00 - [66] Destroyers as they are now, are fine. They just need to make a T2 Assault version, like you have Assault Frigates, and Heavy Assault Cruisers, we need Assault Destroyers.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.09.14 10:12:00 - [67] Originally by: Gedid Tava I see it in two possible parts. Targets and Roles. Some idle thoughts. BC's are comfortable against BS? That is news to me, the counter to the BC is the BS - always has been. There may be a few eWar/Kiting gimmicks that would make your statement true but in general it is false Originally by: VanNostrum ...Destroyers already have high signatures to begin with and an AB speed bonus, like the one they tried on AFs on singularity, could be viable on destroyers.... We would have to look into signatures (lower), base speeds (higher), mass (lower) as well but you are right, that bonus might actually work pretty damn well for Destroyers. Originally by: Lemmy Kravitz Destroyers as they are now, are fine. They just need to make a T2 Assault version, like you have Assault Frigates, and Heavy Assault Cruisers, we need Assault Destroyers. No they are not, the Thrasher is fine but the rest are lacking, not bad but sub-par. Restrictive fittings, lack of slots, crappy hybrids are all dragging down on the Caldari, Gallente and Amarr destroyers which is what needs to be addressed. The volley damage/DPS question can be solved by going full-marauder style with 4 guns x 100% damage. Means a damage increase for Thrasher but that can be mitigated by tweaking fittings to make large bore guns a pain to use .. Cormorant also gains a little but if it is made into a rail boat with the Catalyst aiming for blasters that might not be a bad idea. Example Coercer. Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking speed and Capacitor usage per level. 20% bonus to AB speed boost per level. Role Bonuses: 50% bonus to optimal range for small energy turrets. 100% bonus Small Energy Turret damage. 4+1 Highs, 2 Mids, 4 Lows. Reduce signature to 62.5m (Exactly half of medium gun resolution less than current 83m) and tweak mass/speed to get roughly current MWD speed when using an AB (~1500m/s), tweak agility to make tight orbits difficult (don't want them speed/sig tanking everything ) NB: Mass would have to be high enough so that a MWD frigate is still faster than a MWD Destroyer though, preferable by about 20%. With most everything else remaining as is that would essentially give it scrambler immunity (anti-tackler role) as well as a little more 'tank' against cruiser weaponry due to lower signature. A couple of these would burn a cruiser down just like a couple of cruisers can burn a BC, tweak where required.
Vladimiru Gallente Broken Cannon	Posted - 2010.09.14 22:42:00 - [68] Only one thing is needed to fix destroyers. Reduce sig radius by 40%. Removing RoF penalty and dropping two high slots for one med/one low would help as well, but it's not necessary. The sig radius reduction alone would be enough to make these ships more popular.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.