EVE Search - Destroyers could use some love.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Destroyers could use some love.

» 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)
Gone Beserk Minmatar Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc Scorned Syndicate	Posted - 2010.11.12 15:18:00 - [1] Destroyers have been in the game since before T2 frigate hulls and have remained virtually unchanged and well their age is starting to show... In current eve all destroyers bar the thrasher are deemed "worthless" (except for salvaging duties) and even the trusty Thrasher is just not that good at its job anymore... namely obliterating frigate hulls. Destroyers were meant to have a considerable firepower advantage over frigates at the cost of speed / signature radius and agility making them many times more vulnerable to cruiser+ ships then the nimble frigates. The problem? Assault frigates. the tech 2 variants of the destroyer's natural enemy are proving to be a match or even the better of the 2 in an all out slugfest. Assault frigates break the balance between the 2 by having considerably more EHP and not that much less dps then most destroyers! Random example : the somwhat popular plated wolf (t2 /named modules) -> 220 dps -> 11k EHP -> 2000 m/s AC /Arty Thrasher ->AC: 241 dps ARTY: 134dps (about 1k alpha) ->AC: 8,2k EHP ARTY: 6k EHP ->1870 m/s As you can see the DPS difference is pretty small when we compare AC fits and because of the speed / EHP difference the arty thrasher will not be able to kill the wolf before it closes in. THE SOLUTION. Aint that simple... If destroyer dps is considerable boosted then we will end up with some crazy destroyer gangs because of huge bang for almost no buck. New modules / ship bonuses are possible but would require a huge amount of testing/tweaking. Making the destroyers abit more resilient would go a long ways. Af's usually have 6-7 slots lows and meds combined while destroyers always have 5 , Giving the coercer a second med (needs it anyway), cormorant a low , etc is also a potential solution. Maybe a new tech 2 destroyer class to be a hard counter for tech 2 frigates? lots of possibilities but simply put. TLDR: DESTROYERS NEED SOME LOVE!
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.11.12 20:55:00 - [2] Various solutions have been proposed : 1)Sig res reduction to 55-65 range 2)Extra low/mid slot ( depends on ship ) 3)Reduce the amount of guns and kill the RoF penalty. This eliminates some fitting problems. 4)A small amount of extra grid/cpu ( again depending on ship ), Cat is very CPU tight for instance. 5)Cat/Thrasher, change part of optimal bonus to falloff. Personally I think 1,2,4 are the best remedies to increase their usefullness. 5 kinda follows from the preferred racial weapons.
Lugalzagezi666	Posted - 2010.11.12 21:00:00 - [3] Trasher is definitely destroyer that need some love. Tbh it needs alot of love...
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.12 21:02:00 - [4] Quote: Non-minmatar destroyers need some love. Fixt your title.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.11.12 21:03:00 - [5] Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk Quote: Non-minmatar destroyers need some love. Fixt your title. Still is the optimal range bonus issue with autocannons.
Mavnas	Posted - 2010.11.12 22:16:00 - [6] I don't see any problem with the optimal range bonuses, they're obviously meant to allow you to pick off frigates with long-range weaponry. The problem is the inability to fit 8 guns and a tank on a destroyer without really uber fitting skills, which most people won't have when they're still flying a destroyer. Losing the RoF and reducing number of turret hardpoints to 6 would help. That would undermine the Thrasher's role as cheap suicide gank ship. Maybe that's a good thing too.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.11.12 22:49:00 - [7] If you dont see the problem then you need to look again. An optimal bonus doesnt make sense with blasters or AC's. Falloff would still work for arty.
Mavnas	Posted - 2010.11.12 23:31:00 - [8] Originally by: Kokura Nin If you dont see the problem then you need to look again. An optimal bonus doesnt make sense with blasters or AC's. Falloff would still work for arty. I don't really see destroyers as a good blaster/AC platform. They're not as fast as a frigate. If they're meant to kill frigates, putting short range guns on them then sending them after something they can't catch seems silly.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.11.13 02:42:00 - [9] Originally by: Kokura Nin Various solutions have been proposed : 1)Sig res reduction to 55-65 range 2)Extra low/mid slot ( depends on ship ) 3)Reduce the amount of guns and kill the RoF penalty. This eliminates some fitting problems. 4)A small amount of extra grid/cpu ( again depending on ship ), Cat is very CPU tight for instance. 5)Cat/Thrasher, change part of optimal bonus to falloff. Personally I think 1,2,4 are the best remedies to increase their usefullness. 5 kinda follows from the preferred racial weapons. This. I jumped in to make some other points: With the new salvaging ship destroyers won't be used even for that role in the future. Someone above stated that the thrasher has a 1k alpha. You can actually get it to 2k with a silly fit or 1830 with a nice one. You may or may not have to adjust fittings - losing two turret slots frees up some room. Have all the destroyers with the same signature radius ala battlecruiser would be smart. An AB bonus would be nice for signature tanking.
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.11.13 06:00:00 - [10] Either make Dessy`s the best Heavy Tacklers in the game with a bonus to Orbit Speed, to where they make some sort of system that makes Dessy`s mass lessen closer they get to there primary target. Or they need to make Dessy`s be able to fit cruisertier 1 Weps and have massive tracking with cruiser like attributes so they will murder frigs, but die to Cruisers since they are still to slow to actually be effective against them. They def need big time love all but Minni Dessy is just a joke. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
Angel Et'Death'e	Posted - 2010.11.13 06:12:00 - [11] Originally by: Kail Storm Either make Dessy`s the best Heavy Tacklers in the game with a bonus to Orbit Speed, to where they make some sort of system that makes Dessy`s mass lessen closer they get to there primary target. Or they need to make Dessy`s be able to fit cruisertier 1 Weps and have massive tracking with cruiser like attributes so they will murder frigs, but die to Cruisers since they are still to slow to actually be effective against them. Kail, just stop posting, mkay better yet.....stop breathing
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.13 06:14:00 - [12] I rather like the role the thrasher has, I just think the other destroyers need to be brough in line with it. Since two other destroyers use hybrids... I think we know what needs to be done. All the coercer really needs is another mid slot. Any across the board speed/sig buff is just going to turn the thrasher into eve's cheapest pwnmobile.
Target Painter	Posted - 2010.11.13 07:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk Any across the board speed/sig buff is just going to turn the thrasher into eve's cheapest pwnmobile. Thrasher already is, assuming you know what not to take on with it.
Gone Beserk Minmatar Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc Scorned Syndicate	Posted - 2010.11.13 10:43:00 - [14] I used the Thrasher in the example for sole reason it argueably being the best. Even the Thrasher has difficulties dealing with most af's so other destroyers would fare even worse. I simply wanted to point out that destroyers have a hard time doing their frig hull murdering job when it comes to assault frigates.
SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.11.13 11:06:00 - [15] Originally by: Mavnas I don't see any problem with the optimal range bonuses, they're obviously meant to allow you to pick off frigates with long-range weaponry. The problem is the inability to fit 8 guns and a tank on a destroyer without really uber fitting skills, which most people won't have when they're still flying a destroyer. Losing the RoF and reducing number of turret hardpoints to 6 would help. That would undermine the Thrasher's role as cheap suicide gank ship. Maybe that's a good thing too. WTB skillz that grant +1 turret hardpoint on my thrasher __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever..
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.11.13 14:25:00 - [16] To bang on about destroyers again - I agree, they need some adjustment. I think their big problem is that they have the mobility - and signature of a cruiser, with the EHP and fittings of a frigate. That makes them absurdly easy for a cruiser to kill. I think their DPS and ranges are... actually pretty good, or would be if they weren't having quite such a rough time with fitting space - They don't need crazy fittings, but ... well, you can't fit a rack of 150mm rails to a Cormorant, even without any modules fit. The fix? Slightly more fitting space, substantially lower signature. 50-60m is about right IMO - still bigger than frigates, but ... well, bear in mind they're also considerably slower than frigates as well, and I wouldn't suggest changing that. However I also think it's pretty important for their purpose that they can fit the long range top tier weapons, with a viable combat fit. They're all about being slow moving 'frigate weapon platforms' so lets do that...
TimMc Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.	Posted - 2010.11.13 15:04:00 - [17] Why are you comparing a 10-15mil isk AF with a 700k isk Destroyer? Although I would agree destroyers need either more damage or less sig.
Kassa Daito Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.13 15:15:00 - [18] Originally by: TimMc Why are you comparing a 10-15mil isk AF with a 700k isk Destroyer? /me points to the old DD as an example of what happens when you try to balance EVE around ship cost. /me also points to the pre-tracking formula battleships. ** Disclaimer: Author sometimes spell checks but is not responsible for sins of commission, omission, emission, transmission, or submission. Flowers, bricks, or any other form of feedback appreciated
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.11.13 16:27:00 - [19] Originally by: TimMc Why are you comparing a 10-15mil isk AF with a 700k isk Destroyer? Although I would agree destroyers need either more damage or less sig. Because 15mil is still a pretty trivial amount of money, and even being 700k doesn't make destroyers worth flying.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.11.13 19:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Mavnas Originally by: Kokura Nin If you dont see the problem then you need to look again. An optimal bonus doesnt make sense with blasters or AC's. Falloff would still work for arty. I don't really see destroyers as a good blaster/AC platform. They're not as fast as a frigate. If they're meant to kill frigates, putting short range guns on them then sending them after something they can't catch seems silly. The thing is that frigates generally need to be close to their target to do anything ( mostly tackling ) tech 1 frigs do not out fly t1 dessies by that large a margin that they cant catch frigs ( and this is where the range bonus and tracking comes to help ). If a frig chooses to run away then its not doing its job... ie. you also did your job....warding the big ships from frigs. I have another indirect problem with destroyers and that is that AML Caracals might be too good at the same role, with alot more EHP.
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.11.13 23:18:00 - [21] Originally by: Angel Et'Death'e Originally by: Kail Storm Either make Dessy`s the best Heavy Tacklers in the game with a bonus to Orbit Speed, to where they make some sort of system that makes Dessy`s mass lessen closer they get to there primary target. Or they need to make Dessy`s be able to fit cruisertier 1 Weps and have massive tracking with cruiser like attributes so they will murder frigs, but die to Cruisers since they are still to slow to actually be effective against them. Kail, just stop posting, mkay better yet.....stop breathing You are an Idiot, post with your main or dont post. Dessy`s as heavy tacklers would be awesome, Dessy`s with Tier 1 Cruiser Weps but the small paper tanks they have now would be cool as well. Either way explain whats wrong or STFU -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
Hot Body	Posted - 2010.11.13 23:25:00 - [22] Originally by: Angel Et'Death'e Originally by: Kail Storm Either make Dessy`s the best Heavy Tacklers in the game with a bonus to Orbit Speed, to where they make some sort of system that makes Dessy`s mass lessen closer they get to there primary target. Or they need to make Dessy`s be able to fit cruisertier 1 Weps and have massive tracking with cruiser like attributes so they will murder frigs, but die to Cruisers since they are still to slow to actually be effective against them. Kail, just stop posting, mkay better yet.....stop breathing You are lame, produce Ideas or Be Quiet. Destroyers as Heavy Tacklers and haveing wonderful orbit speeds and even accelerated ones isnt Kails Idea, it goes way back when people in this game realized Destroyers were semi useless and only good for Blitzing Lvl 1`s-2`s. Lol I think he struck a nerve and you are afraid to lose your newb mobile. Lol U mad Bro?....U Mad.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.11.13 23:37:00 - [23] Originally by: Kokura Nin The thing is that frigates generally need to be close to their target to do anything ( mostly tackling ) tech 1 frigs do not out fly t1 dessies by that large a margin that they cant catch frigs ( and this is where the range bonus and tracking comes to help ). The problem is that this particular role is pretty much non-present in game. A battleship doesnt need frigate cover from destroyers because these pilots are better used in more battleships, and most battleships can take care of frigates good enough by themselves. Now dont get me wrong, thats exactly the role destroyers are supposed to play and they do it reasonably well, its just that the environment rarely does call for that role if at all. Unless the pilot cant fly another battleship, but chances are in that case he doesnt have the skill to fly a properly fit destroyer.
Mortuus Minmatar Waiting for Palli Angry Dogs	Posted - 2010.11.13 23:52:00 - [24] Hmmm... How to make Destroyers viable anti-frigate ships huh... Slightly faster than a cruiser (maybe...), slightly lower sig, less range and dps.... Thats what we have now. Why not add the Cruiser level tank to them? Give them the fitting and slot layout for a cruiser sized tank, leave the bonuses for small guns and no bonuses for larger weapons. So tank hard and go close range, or tank slightly less hard and go long range. Done.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.11.14 02:31:00 - [25] Eve is like a Rubix cube. You can't radically change a ship w/o messing with many others. In the case of destroyers there's only two practical solutions. The first is to recreate the same relationship and variety between dessies and AF that battlecruisers and HACs currently enjoy. Quite a few ideas listed above would do this. Destroyer - Smaller sig radius. Fewer turrets but no ROF. Much more of a tank; this includes more natural EHP as well as more low and mid slots. I'd have a role bonus like an AB bonus - that would fit destroyers very well. No optimal OR falloff bonus. If you want to shoot farther then add TC or TE like battlecruisers do - you have more slots now. AF - Sniper AF and close range AF. Add fourth bonus. It's not the most imaginative solution but it solves for both AF and destroyers and gives a variation in choice. The second solution is to recreate the destroyer w/ some complicated role bonus. Super stealth destroyer? Horrible. Not what the game needs. Mini- command ship? More of a novelty then a necessity. If something brand new had to be made then I'd vote for something that fleets would love to have. Battleship fleets right now are prey to stealth bombers and AHAC fleets that can warp right on top of them. A destroyer that could generate a "shove off" field for vessels trying to warp on top of it would be new. A vessel that could generate a decloak field area would be new. Something in that direction....
Cobalt Sixty Caldari Invictus Australis BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.11.14 05:22:00 - [26] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf A vessel that could generate a decloak field area would be new. Something in that direction.... Role bonus to drastically increase Smart Bomb range Role bonus to drastically decrease Smart Bomb damage Role bonus to drastically decrease (slow) Smart Bomb Rate of Fire Destroyer activates Smart Bomb, the omnidirectional damage from which decloaks anything concealed within range of it. At the same time, the actual damage it causes is negligible so you don't have to worry about knocking out friendly drones or other small ships.
Sir Drake	Posted - 2010.11.14 06:06:00 - [27] How about these: a) new module exclusive for dessys, -90% speed +50% sig +500% tracking (or at least enough to hit any kind of speed tanker even in close orbit) and +50-100% optimal/falloff (maybe even some extra HPs or resists). or b) rework it into an anti-cloaker ship From my pov a) would actually let it do its job as a frig killer while making it extremly vulnerable to anything bigger and with the Triage/Siege modules ingame it shouldnt be all to hard to implement. b) would be extremly popular but will cause a rather hot discussion on how far the mechanic of counter-cloaking should go. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.11.14 06:36:00 - [28] Originally by: Sir Drake How about these: a) new module exclusive for dessys, -90% speed +50% sig +500% tracking (or at least enough to hit any kind of speed tanker even in close orbit) and +50-100% optimal/falloff (maybe even some extra HPs or resists). A bit much. You're obsoleting at least two other modules and I don't know how many ships. Think simpler. A ship with the signature radius and speed of a frigate. Mids and lows to support a hearty tank. And in the highs - four slots for a module that does the opposite of a tractor beam - pushes targets out 20-30 km. I liked the smart bomb idea above but probably not smart bombs per se (Aw man! your drones killed me again! ) I don't think that would stop bombers though as they warp in, drop bombs, and warp out.
Sir Drake	Posted - 2010.11.14 06:59:00 - [29] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf A bit much. You're obsoleting at least two other modules and I don't know how many ships. ... I dont think it would be as extrem as you imagine. Dessy using that module would be a big target (cruiser lvl sig) with minimal movement (~20m/s) and their EHP in general isnt something to write home about either. Only real advantage it gives to dessys is the ability to put their DPS on target no matter how fast the other guy moves but at the cost of making it more vulnerable to bigger ships. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
Lord Zekk 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit	Posted - 2010.11.14 07:10:00 - [30] The thrasher is fine. If you can't take on ANY frigate hull with an auto/arti thrasher then it's because of your lack of piloting ability. Many ships in Eve need to be flown properly and used in a particular way to be effective. The Coercer is an excellent Dessie except for the fact that it doesn't have a second mid. Fare enough. Give it that and it should be fine with a a bit of PG, CPU tweaking accordingly. The Cat and the Caldari one need a bit of reworking. The role of dessies however is fine. Anti frigate boat but gets it's ass kicked by cruisers. Just need a bit of tweaking not a complete overhall.

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.