| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
868
   |
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello folks,
While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic.
This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far.
As always, constructive comments are welcome.
Suggested changes are mentioned below:
COERCER:
One medium slot is highly impractical for any kind of solo or even small gang fit and has been changed. Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
- Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 650 (+25) / 800 (+18) / 750 (+20)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 565 (+3) / 375 s / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
- Sensor strength: 10 Radar
- Signature radius: 83
CORMORANT:
Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
- Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 168 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (+18) / 650 (+25) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 465 (-35) / 310 s (-23) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
- Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
- Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST:
Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
- Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+23) / 750 (+20) / 800 (+18)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 500 (+31) / 335 s (+22.5) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
- Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
- Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER:
Slot layout untouched. Significantly reduced capacitor to make it consistent with other Minmatar vessels (cap/s stays the same though).
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+20) / 700 (+23) / 650 (+25)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 355 (-102.5) / 225 s (-66.6) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
- Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
- Signature radius: 75
MODULES:
The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
|
|
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Good start - interesting to see how this shakes up the landscape. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER:
CORMORANT: - Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST: - Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER:
Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
868
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER:
CORMORANT: - Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST: - Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER:
Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before?
Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update.  
Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious.
Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that. |
|
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update. Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious. Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that.
/me snickers
Pre-Thanks for fixing it  |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
257
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER:
You guys get us the best presents. Can we have it a week before the Reds do? Please? We've been good. |
Toterra
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
283
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Coercer with 2 mids, finally!
Better light missiles and small laser fitting reduction I can also fully get behind.
I'm not sure though if it's going to be enough for beam lasers to become attractive when their extra range over scorch means relatively little at the frigate level due to high ship speeds.
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
868
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ok fixed the main post: HP, signature radius and capacitor were incorrect before. That's what I get for using tons of spreadsheets and mixing new ones with older, pre-Crucible data.   |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst.
Option 1 : 8 turret slots.
Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. |
|
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Subtle Thrasher buff?
Coercer - interesting to see how the fitting and weapon changes pan out. It was always a strong ship just could not tackle.
Catalyst - Slight stat buff, now worst powergrid by far.
Corm - Nerf? Its real key advantage over the other ships was its ability to fit prop, scram, web and shield tank. For me it was this combination that meant it could handle faction frigs and the other destroyers when fit well. The only target ships I would avoid in the corm were the Gallente/Caldari assault ships (resist profile) and the Daredevil. Really not sure why you would ever choose this over the Thrasher now, if you have to give it a low then take the rocket high slot. But still I do not think it needs such a drastic change. With this and the plate changes you may start to see 400mm T2 plate corms. Slower but tougher.
Thrasher - Generally receives a buff to the already top destroyer.
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Option 3 : only 7 highs but keep the 4 medslots.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yay! I can use low slot(s) for something other than CPU/Grid modules to wedge in all the guns! |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Coercer is my favorite ship currently and will be pretty fun with the changes.
Any thoughts on changing the Thrashers 50% optimal bonus to a falloff bonus to keep it inline with the projection of other dessies? |
Jarvin Xadi
EVE University
Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
870
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Jarvin Xadi wrote:Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking.
We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size. |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
766
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
I see what you did there.... Snuck in the light missile discussion under the destroyer thread...
/me wags finger. 
All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I wonder if this will help light missiles be used a bit more. I was somewhat hoping for a second or two off of the launch time. But I'm wondering how this will work out either way.
The destroyers are pretty disgusting anti-frig platforms at the moment. Honestly, even assault frigates really don't want to go up against them. There seems to be something slightly wrong with that?
Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.
I don't know what the correct answer is for this, but I think you may want to examine this situation with Destroyers.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
284
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
The destroyers are pretty disgusting anti-frig platforms at the moment. Honestly, even assault frigates really don't want to go up against them. There seems to be something slightly wrong with that?
That's more or less working as intended I believe.
Quote:Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.
I personally think that small blasters did not need a buff, so they are a bit too good now. And the ASB is definitely too good.
It's not a problem with the destroyer hulls, just some modules. Similarly, the Thrasher being so popular has more to do with autocannons ease of fitting and artillery alpha than with the hull itself.
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
I really don't buy this cap amount thing. Why don't you give minmatar actual worse cap/sec?
How about giving them all 8 turrets? I do really love salvaging a lot, but I would honestly prefer having 8 turrets on my cormorant.
Still only 2 mids on the catalyst? Then I guess I'll have to continue not flying it.
I'd like to see some consistency with range bonuses (and I guess a massive revamp of t2 ammo and tracking enhancers, but that won't happen ever). |
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup.
From Ship Balancing Summer Update
"But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based." |
|
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup. From Ship Balancing Summer Update "But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based." Indeed, and the flycatcher should be a missile-base destroyer (but since it's just a terrible ship, everybody uses the sabre).
But remember that the ferox/moa have missile slots too, and are sometimes used as missile ships.
"It's a cormorant ! I will use my armor-tank enyo with kin/therm hardeners !"
*get raped by a nova-rocket-cormorant* |
Cameron Zero
Red Federation
84
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets?
Quote: Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.
Yes, I know they're small turrets, but it's still confusing to someone who doesn't understand the naming conventions.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. GǪ" |
BadAssMcKill
Ghost Headquarters
The Ghost Army
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
Its a step in the right direction but it doesn't seem like its a big enough change |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Cameron Zero wrote:I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets? A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit !  |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
284
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Cameron Zero wrote:I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets? A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit !
Let me guess: lots of whining about dumbing down the game and destroying "immersion"?
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.
Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).
I dont like the corm changes, but the rest look quite good.
For the cormorant, I would suggest giving it a slight speed boost, and maybe a fitting increase, while leaving the slots the same. If you want to get really out there, give it the merlin's old shield boost bonus. |
tofucake prime
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
49
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
Excuse me, but did you really just say "Thrasher was left untouched except for the parts we touched"?
wat |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
tofucake prime wrote:Excuse me, but did you really just say "Thrasher was left untouched except for the parts we touched"?
wat
You are an angry man. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
757
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
I really don't feel these changes are sufficient. The Cormorant really needs a change to its highslot layout, especially if you're going to lose a midslot.
That said, your OP doesn't say anything about the changed Turret/Launcher layout for any of them. Could you tell us how you imagine the ships? |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
There's a lot of discussion on rockets on corms.
There's a lot of simplification on destroyers. (attempting to make them all very similar)
I know it's a lot of dev time to introduce new mods.. but instead of a spreadsheet tweak to try and fit the masses demands.. why not introduce a single subsystem slot for the dessies?
Put subsystem A into the corm.. it's now a 7/4/2 rocket destroyer with the proper bonus
Put subsystem B to make it into a 8/3/2 hybrid dessie.
etc..
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |