Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 06:58:00 -
[1]
If so, by how much?
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 10:31:00 -
[2]
Yes, and they need to lose about a third IMO. 60m looks reasonable for a Cormorant - it'll still be the speed of a cruiser, with the ehps of a frigate, but it won't automatically be dead meat for anything cruiser sized that sneezes on it.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 10:40:00 -
[3]
I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 16:49:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber)
It would say about an equal 30% decrease in physical size as well.
|
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 00:26:00 -
[5]
yes, destroyers need to lose some sig radius and maybe some kilos.
Overall at this point anything you do to destroyers will make them a bit better than what they are now.
|
Umega
Solis Mensa
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 02:40:00 -
[6]
5 minmatar, 10-15 everyone else on descreased sig.. no more. And yeah.. shrink them a touch visually n lose some kilos.
I don't want them competing with cruisers.. they are designed frig smashers and in the right hands, they do that quite well. But I don't think they should be so paper thin to cruisers on the defensive front as they sit already.
---------------------------------------- -Treat the EVE Market like you're a pimp and it is your 'employee'.. freely fondle it as you wish and make it pay you for it- |
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 03:56:00 -
[7]
They should all have the same sig radius the same way BC do. 55m - 60m would be good. The caldari destroyer is almost 100m right now. Instapop anyone? Even at 75m the thrasher is easily tracked and torn apart.
If you wanted to create a unique ship: (Thrasher Example) Reduce high slots from 7 + utility to 5+ utility. Give the thrasher two more mids and reduce it's sig radius to 60m. Lose the ROF penalty AND the optimal bonus. Give it (and all other destroyers) an AB bonus as suggested for the AFs a while back.
This gives some room to work w/ fixing AF's as well.
|
Max Hardcase
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 07:02:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf They should all have the same sig radius the same way BC do. 55m - 60m would be good. The caldari destroyer is almost 100m right now. Instapop anyone? Even at 75m the thrasher is easily tracked and torn apart.
If you wanted to create a unique ship: (Thrasher Example) Reduce high slots from 7 + utility to 5+ utility. Give the thrasher two more mids and reduce it's sig radius to 60m. Lose the ROF penalty AND the optimal bonus. Give it (and all other destroyers) an AB bonus as suggested for the AFs a while back.
This gives some room to work w/ fixing AF's as well.
I do not agree with the optimal bit, Destroyers still wont have the ability to catch up with frigs. The trashers optimal bonus should be split into 5% optimal and 5% falloff. ( AC's )
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 09:18:00 -
[9]
I'd argue that you could use the two mids to rebuild some of that optimal range via tracking computers. The key more then anything else would be choice. Right now, why would you fly an arty AF, whether it's the jaguar - or hopefully the wolf down the line - when you can get the same range with the thrasher?
It's all open for debate - the basic point though is that destroyers and AF are so close in nature/roles that you have to be on the same overall page for what you want to do before you just change one class.
|
La redangel
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 09:40:00 -
[10]
yes, it does lol, my thrasher stuck out like sore thumb thur., at mass test fleet battle round.
|
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 10:02:00 -
[11]
Just a smidgin more grid would be nice for my Cormorant, whilst we're at it. Being able to fit 150s without a grid mod would be nice.
|
Nalia Shanalar
Amarr Tanaka Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 11:47:00 -
[12]
Just from the back of my rather unexperienced and theorycrafting head: 150% of a frigs signature, (currently ~200%) 75% of a cruisers HP (currently ~50%)
Their main problems in small gangs seems to be surviveability. Due to other factors like their general fitting issues, as well of low agility and speed, those changes probably wouldnt make them overpowered.
The Trasher of course is an issue all by itself and more related to the artillery alpha situation ;)
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 20:03:00 -
[13]
Yes, lower sig radius, and one more MID or LOW slot, would help a lot.
Regarding the many weapon hardpoints and the RoF penalty, the idea is to enable Destroyers to do a massive alpha, without having high DPS, so that should probably stay,
-- Salpad C.E.O., Carebears with Attitude |
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.10.10 00:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Salpad Yes, lower sig radius, and one more MID or LOW slot, would help a lot.
Regarding the many weapon hardpoints and the RoF penalty, the idea is to enable Destroyers to do a massive alpha, without having high DPS, so that should probably stay,
That idea looks great on paper but in practice it benefits one race more then any other and the destroyer class as a rule is a failure. Kind of like active armor tanking ships using shotguns for weapons. CCP is rolling out a ship dedicated to salvaging. I hope I'm not giving them too much credit in hoping that indicates a redo of the destroyer class into true combat vessels.
|
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.10.10 04:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf CCP is rolling out a ship dedicated to salvaging. I hope I'm not giving them too much credit in hoping that indicates a redo of the destroyer class into true combat vessels.
You know, you just may be right!
|
Feikno
|
Posted - 2010.10.10 21:58:00 -
[16]
Call me crazy, but why not have a alternative Tech 2 Variant like a Assault Ship for combat.
Perhaps some minor changes here and there, but T2 Resists.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 01:20:00 -
[17]
If there was a T2 assault destroyer who would bother w/ assault frigates? Eve does not need new ships as much as it needs some old ones looked at. Destroyers, our current example, get used as salvagers. Solo roaming by high SP characters. LOL fleets. Level one missions. That's it.
It's been brought up by CSM that they need to get changed. They're on the list. What I suggested in this thread would create the same synergy at the small class level that you find between sniper hacs, close range hacs, and battlecruisers. Keep it short and simple.
|
Wacktopia
Bi-Tech Theory Focused Intentions
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 09:12:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs I think they need to be physically smaller then cruisers. :P (A thrasher is bigger then a Stabber)
Please explain logistics ship signatures? Or LSE/MWD bloom?
tl;dr: Physical Size =/= Signature Radius
|
Tanaka Reina
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 09:20:00 -
[19]
We had a talk in the AF thread about gang links boosters and stuff. How about add a range bonus to RR? Destroyers could get a new role in wolfpacks.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |