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) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:19:00 -
[271] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?
They have different roles the same hull often means nothing in this game
|
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
263
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:33:00 -
[272] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?
When destroyers were buffed, interdictors weren't. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
454
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 06:17:00 -
[273] - Quote
So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....
|
Recoil IV
Far From Sober
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 11:24:00 -
[274] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....
and the rest of usefull mods including a dcu II |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
535
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 14:52:00 -
[275] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....
Well check this out:
Thrasher - First to Fight
Minmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe. |
Lili Lu
369
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 16:15:00 -
[276] - Quote
Reread the op. Things that stand out still.
The Catalyst is still gimped for fitting in some crazy racial straightjacket attempt to force blasters. Do you not realize that this means the Catalyst struggles to fit rails at all, while the Cormorant has no problem fitting blasters? This is not balanced. One race has viable short and long range fits, but the other doesn't. Can you not up the pg on this ship to something at least equal with a cormorant's? And really it should be more.
Not changing the extreme 10% optimal bonus for the Cormorant means it can still be fit for crazy sniping and no other destroyer can get even close to it's range. That bonus should be 5%, or at most 7.5%. Should only Caldari be able to use their long range guns effectively? (well except for arty alpha at relatively short ranges)
The Thrasher's signature radius is still a relative order of magnitude less than the others. It has plenty of room to retain the smallest sig radius but still be in the ball park with the other destroyers. And again what is with the new bloated signatures on Gallente ships?
Please read up. People want to have options. They want to be able to fit long range guns and not be forced into fitting their racial short range guns. Even if in the larger scheme of things they will have an advantage with fittings that harmonize with their racial predilections. And again, 10% range bonus on top of the already longest range guns is unbelievable. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 18:02:00 -
[277] - Quote
how come their isn't any mass stats on there? |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
536
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 00:46:00 -
[278] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Reread the op. Things that stand out still. Not changing the extreme 10% optimal bonus for the Cormorant means it can still be fit for crazy sniping and no other destroyer can get even close to it's range. That bonus should be 5%, or at most 7.5%. Should only Caldari be able to use their long range guns effectively? (well except for arty alpha at relatively short ranges) The Thrasher's signature radius is still a relative order of magnitude less than the others. It has plenty of room to retain the smallest sig radius but still be in the ball park with the other destroyers. And again what is with the new bloated signatures on Gallente ships? Please read up. People want to have options. They want to be able to fit long range guns and not be forced into fitting their racial short range guns. Even if in the larger scheme of things they will have an advantage with fittings that harmonize with their racial predilections. And again, 10% range bonus on top of the already longest range guns is unbelievable.
The corm, overheated, does 124 dps at 95km. It can lock out to 110km with the current cookie cutter fit. Really - that's it's niche. That's what it does better then the other destroyers. If you put AM into it you're still only looking at 214 DPS. It's the biggest, slowest destroyer with the least DPS. It's only scary when you get four or five in a minor plex 100km off of the warp in.
And as annoying as the cormorant is, it has nothing on a Naga in a major. |
MJ Incognito
Saltatio Vita AAA Citizens
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 06:14:00 -
[279] - Quote
The problems with destroyers is not Damage oriented. The problem balance wise is slots/tank among them.
If you have this obsession with 13 slot count, why not reduce the high slots to 6, 4 weapon mounts -- 100% damage bonus
reallocate the 2 other highs to mids/lows
Then give them all a role bonus of 100% web range, and remove the %lvl tracking bonuses in place of other better choices.
Then give them a role bonus where they get a 50% reduction on PG/CPU for small weapon platforms, and reduce their ship stats accordingly based on all these changes.
Doing all these steps allows you to limit the tank they can get with plates/extenders because the powergrid/cpu won't be there. It will also enable them to do the things they currently have issues doing such as fit long range weapons w/o getting massive PG stat boost and still dictating range on ships with webs.
Their DPS at those 20-30km web ranges will be enough to harm frigates while dictating range, but be nothing to challenge cruisers who can easily hit to those ranges, and have the tracking at those ranges to annihilate destroyers.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 15:19:00 -
[280] - Quote
It seems that you guys need a dictionary. There is a difference between balancing and homogenization that you guys seem to fail to understand. You are making all the races the same and ruining the complexity of the game.
The Amarr have always been short on mid slots and hard to fit the guns. However to offset that they have very strong tanks and the most DPS in game. Despite their drawbacks Amarr ships are some of the most popular in game from what I see. currently I think the Coercer is the best destroyer for running level 1 and 2 missions.
Missiles can hit at any distance the exact same and you don't have the issues with tracking that guns have. To offset that they are low potential dps but actual and potential are very close to the same where guns are literally hit or miss. You can hit on one volley and completely miss on the next one so you have to learn how guns and tracking works to use them effectively or avoid them effectively.
So if you are making lazors easier to fit and giving the coercer another mid are you going to increase the range of blasters? Are you going to boost the dps and tracking of autocannons?
Missiles are immune to tracking disruption and kind of immune to ewar in general with fof missiles. So since you are boosting missile dps are you going to remove tracking, optimal and falloff from the game and just make guns hit with in a certain range like missiles do?
When you guys do stuff like this it makes me wonder if you have ever played the game before. You are making the same mistake Blizzard did with WoW and you are ruining the game by listen to the whiners that complain about balance. This is not WoW it is Eve. We don't have classes we have ships and anyone can train to fly any ship which makes imbalance impossible. If you like another destroyer better than the one you are flying then crosstrain, it's that simple. |
|
Recoil IV
Far From Sober
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 18:17:00 -
[281] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:I. If you like another destroyer better than the one you are flying then crosstrain, it's that simple.
yes,if training a frigate to and guns to t2 and lvl 4`s specs would take 20 minute who the **** would mind??
|
Pleniers
Appetite 4 Destruction
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
Please maintain the 4 slot layout on the cormorant. It's really the feature that make it more distinct than any other dessy. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
694
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 13:23:00 -
[283] - Quote
Still no changing my arty Thrasher for another one
Still not changing from my Sabre to another one
I can fly all of them, why do I get the feeling I don't have much of a choice? brb |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 13:32:00 -
[284] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible?
CCP has a way of significantly buffing t1 and leaving their t2 variants unchanged. Another great example other than the destroyer buffs in inferno that lead to this inconsistency is the 6+ year old BC hp buff that for some reason never was applied to command ships. Prior to this hp buff command ships had higher base hp values in a similar ratio as t1 cruisers to hacs... However after the t1 bc hp buff they ended up having more raw base hp value than the t2s, seems a bit silly if you ask me .
The truth is that CCP has an amazingly long list of oversights. I think it has to do with the quality assurance reps being drunk all the time (just kidding), just look at how many model/texure bugs/fails are present on many ships/stations even after these models go through weeks and weeks of quality assurance. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
471
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:21:00 -
[285] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:X Gallentius wrote:So far fairly impressed with 125mm rail comet. Lost fight to 10MN ab fit Thrasher. LOL that a thrasher can fit 250 arties AND a 10MN AB. What a joke....
Well check this out: Thrasher - First to FightMinmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe. Catalyst can do something like this but with no point and a micro auxilliary core in the low. 7x 75mm gatling rails, and a small neut too.
|
Lili Lu
394
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:28:00 -
[286] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Well check this out: Thrasher - First to FightMinmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe. Catalyst can do something like this but with no point and a micro auxilliary core in the low. 7x 75mm gatling rails, and a small neut too. Do we concur that the blaster version of the Catalyst is sub par but that there may be hope for a 125mm "hull tanked" version? Still evaluating... My question is why should we accept the proposal that the Catalyst should only be considering 125mm rails and can't even contemplate 150mm rails while the Cormorant can consider any and all blasters? To apply racial preferences as a straightjacket is bad design (especially if those straightjackets are not equally applied).
The Catalyst can gain greater benefit from blasters, and the Corm from rails, but there should still be the choice available to fit either kind on either ship. As proposed the Catalyst is gimped for choice and the Corm is blessed with the choice. That needs to change if CCP is going to call this balancing in any sense of the word. |
Quake590
Sub Par. SRS.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 15:05:00 -
[287] - Quote
Personally I hate the cormorant change. I can see where CCP is coming from, and what they're trying to do, but in the process they are killing what the cormorant does best. The ability to fit four mids gives it versaility with its fittings.
One low slot might seem impractical at first but in fact is its strength, it can fit a tank in the mids, dual webs, dual prop, a TD, whatever it likes, while losing out on either damage or tank as a consequence. If you want a ship that does those better, then the thrasher and catalyst there for variation.
I suppose the biggest issue with dessies atm is the small amount of choice that you get, you're stuck between four ships that vary mostly in slots. I can't wait for the second line of dessies, and finally getting my missile dessies. The Heretic is nice but costs a rediculous amount for T1 stats :P
Quake |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 15:39:00 -
[288] - 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?
Something wrong with destroyers fulfilling the role they are specifically aimed at (killing frigates) and even named for.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 15:54:00 -
[289] - Quote
Usagi Toshiro wrote:+1 for more Destroyer hulls.
Regarding the use of them for planetary bombardment, aren't they a bit small for this? When I imagine a ship designed to rain doom upon a planet I see a dread or battleship for this. The current dreads could be modified for this use in low/null sec, leaving a need for a hull for high sec.
I would like to see a new, larger hull for this. Maybe something between a BC and a BS? CCP is really pushing the 'specific role for each ship' idea which is cool. Give us some new ones.
If they really want to roll with the destroyer as the platform for planetary bombardment can it have some sort of siege mode? Make it immobile and allow it to deploy some planetary punishment weapon to bring the rain. This would be a great feature!
**Edit** Spelling.
I am pretty sure destroyers are only the first ship to be so bonused. It fits in well with their role as basically a weapon platform. The larger vessels firepower is probably a bit excessive for close support anyway. I am sure as dust and its relationship with eve expands you will see more ships that can cross over, hopefully culminating in the much wished for t2 planet killer dreadnaught. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
147
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 17:34:00 -
[290] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Well check this out: Thrasher - First to FightMinmatar sent a few of those through a minor acceleration gate first to absorb DPS. It's an impractical fit for anything else. But an MSE AND a 400mm plate - with second tier guns, a nuet, and no fitting mods! I think if I put a 400mm plate on a Cat I have to go with Electrons and still need fitting help. We won't even touch the MSe. Catalyst can do something like this but with no point and a micro auxilliary core in the low. 7x 75mm gatling rails, and a small neut too. Do we concur that the blaster version of the Catalyst is sub par but that there may be hope for a 125mm "hull tanked" version? Still evaluating... My question is why should we accept the proposal that the Catalyst should only be considering 125mm rails and can't even contemplate 150mm rails while the Cormorant can consider any and all blasters? To apply racial preferences as a straightjacket is bad design (especially if those straightjackets are not equally applied). The Catalyst can gain greater benefit from blasters, and the Corm from rails, but there should still be the choice available to fit either kind on either ship. As proposed the Catalyst is gimped for choice and the Corm is blessed with the choice. That needs to change if CCP is going to call this balancing in any sense of the word.
The probably chalk it up to some reason like it gets a drone. Here is a idea: REMOVE THE BLASTED DRONE AND GIVE IT ANOTHER MID SLOT AND MAWR PG/CPU!!!!! Problem solved. Oh wait that wouldn't make the Thrasher the king of destroyers. Nevermind. I forgot that we weren't balancing. Just making it seem like you were balancing without the actual balancing part. Move along nothing to see here. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
473
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:04:00 -
[291] - Quote
Here's my results:
For long range weapons: Corm niche is super long range sniper. 105km.
Coercer and Cat long range excels at lots of dps at mid range. (Coercer seems to have the numbers on the cat). For equivalent fits it seems to me like the Cat is outpaced by the Coercer. There may be some piloting issues that make them equal, but I haven't found it yet. These ships can easily blap frigates and will eat corms alive if they are within 40km
Thrasher range niche is arty alpha. Gate camps, nanofaggotry. Needs to (and will) get shot off first to kill Cat/Coercer.
Short Range: Catalyst sucks in real PvP. Can't project damage. Can't control range. Probably a good blob ship where the larger opponent can't cycle his weapons fast enough to kill multiple cats before getting popped. Catalyst's niche is ganking haulers with massive dps.
Coercer is awesome, can project massive damage out to long range weapon territory (125mm rails with antimatter for example). This is its true niche.
Thrasher is awesome since it is a Minmatar hull. Suffers same damage projection issues as cat but is much more versatile.
Cormorant - Better range than cat and can control range with midslots.
Otherwise, after studying this for a bit the reason they give Thrasher/Corm more PG is so they can fit a Medium Shield Extender as their minimal tank which has about the same effect as a damage control unit. These two ships can also increase their tanks by quite a bit by also installing a damage control, but at the cost of losing a damage mod. So there's a gank/tank tradeoff there.
The Cat really doesn't have that option. It only makes sense as a hull tanked or no-tanked ship. It's a clear winner in the "gank haulers" niche, and is worse than the other hulls in real pvp at short range - especially if they decide to tank their hulls (Corm, Thrasher) to allow time to control range. The Coercer just has an unbelievably long engagement range with Scorch.
So, in the end, the Catalyst can be used for real pvp and be effective. But like most Gallente hulls it will never have a clear niche vs other destroyers other than face melting dps against undefended civilians.
---
And please get rid of the drone! Too much time needs to be spent for too little result.
|
Lili Lu
396
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:48:00 -
[292] - Quote
Judging by your post, and my last post before I edited it. One thing they definitely should do is change the names on a couple of them. Cormorant, Coercer, and Catalyst - rather easy to refer to the wrong one when typing up a post.
Anyway, Catalyst seems to be the clear loser. One pita drone (at least make it two or just get rid of it) and the worst fitting stats by far. It really needs to be rethought. Also, who fed it 5 servings of pancakes every morning. It's fatter than a shield bloated Cormorant now. Stop hurting it with your tainted love.
The Corm's range is absurd. A 10% bonus on top of the longest range guns in class is absurd. 100+ range when all the others struggle to hit 50 or 60 is crazy.
The Thrasher's alpha ability is over-done. Not really by anything about the ship, but more by the former arty alpha buff a few expansions ago. I've always thought it was made too extreme. And why is the sig radius an order of magnitude smaller than the rest. Feed it some of those stacks of pancakes you should be withholding from the Catalyst.
The Coercer I have no experience with and probably never will. But it looks ok at least from fighting them. Not really seeing any issues. But I'm sure some have things they want to post about it (like it losing a low for a medium lol).
Ugh, hope you can adjust these again before you dump them on Tranquility. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 06:09:00 -
[293] - Quote
I'm +1ing the keep 4 mids on Cormorant cause. The Cormorant is an extremely powerful frigate sniper and losing its 4th mid would gimp its sniper fit. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 10:05:00 -
[294] - Quote
The only appeal of the coercer (and all amarr laser ships) is the silliness of scorch ammo. Eagerly awaiting a devpost about re-done T2 ammo and lasers (and TEs I guess). |
MJ Incognito
Saltatio Vita AAA Citizens
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 10:08:00 -
[295] - Quote
Are you guys seriously missing the 20km 329 dps coercer and the 6km 460 dps coercer fits after this change? In what ******* joke of a world would you ever pwn a coercer with a thrasher again? |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:05:00 -
[296] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Coercer is by and large fine as is .. the second midslot is a waste of balancing/trap if you ask me. Think out of the box instead damnit, make it into the glass-cannon extraordinaire that it was originally intended to be. If you look back a bit you can see in one of my posts that the Coercer will still make an excellent glass cannon while being able to fit a warp disruptor. And personally I'm not a fan of the 1 mid Coercer. It works, but only in gangs and against ignorant opponents that underestimate it.
I have to disagree. Often times destroyers fights are so close that neither side has much chance to warp until its too late. I have killed people with the coercer and died to coercers. Allowing the coercer to fit bigger guns isn't that great of a benefit because tracking is its main weakness.
Occassionally someone will warp off. But its actually pretty rare.
I am not really sure what use a cormorant will be. I used to be able to kill most other destroyers including thrashers with the extra midslot (shield, ab scram plus td, or shield, mwd scram plus web). Now with the same slot layout its just clearly worse than a thrasher.
It is so slow it needs that extra mid.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:14:00 -
[297] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Are you guys seriously missing the 20km 329 dps coercer and the 6km 460 dps coercer fits after this change? In what ******* joke of a world would you ever pwn a coercer with a thrasher again?
AC thashers rarely beat coercers now. The coercers current problem is dying to tracking disruptor dramiels and fast frigates that ab under its guns.
Lets see your fits.
Right now I am hitting about 400 dps with them along with a solid tank and an mwd to help get in range. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:45:00 -
[298] - Quote
Cearain wrote:MJ Incognito wrote:Are you guys seriously missing the 20km 329 dps coercer and the 6km 460 dps coercer fits after this change? In what ******* joke of a world would you ever pwn a coercer with a thrasher again? AC thashers rarely beat coercers now. The coercers current problem is dying to tracking disruptor dramiels and fast frigates that ab under its guns. Lets see your fits. Right now I am hitting about 400 dps with them along with a solid tank and an mwd to help get in range.
Coercers have always been bad because they can't both move and point..
for some strange reason people have convinced themselves that that means they aren't powerful.. when they are probably the single most powerful dessies in 1v1 combat..
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
476
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:58:00 -
[299] - Quote
Cearain wrote:AC thashers rarely beat coercers now. The coercers current problem is dying to tracking disruptor ... This is a problem for all destroyers. It takes good piloting of specific fits to take down a td frigate. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:10:00 -
[300] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:AC thashers rarely beat coercers now. The coercers current problem is dying to tracking disruptor ... This is a problem for all destroyers. It takes good piloting of specific fits to take down a td frigate.
Pretty much.
I think the coercer had it the worst thogh.
Thrasher has a tracking bonus and it is the fastest destroyer so it had better chances.
Rail corm used to be able to fit either a mwd and web or a ab and td so it could cope a bit. I'm not sure what use a corm will be now. Like I said it seems like it is now clearly a thrasher - only worse.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
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 |