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) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
477
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:41:00 -
[301] - Quote
Cearain wrote: 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.
Marginally worse. MWD Frig, "TD - Keep at range 18km" is almost all you need to solo all short range destroyers, and many long range dessies not using T2 long range ammo. Not advisable against groups of dessies unless you are really pro pilot.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
611
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:13:00 -
[302] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote: 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.
Marginally worse. MWD Frig, "TD - Keep at range 18km" is almost all you need to solo all short range destroyers, and many long range dessies not using T2 long range ammo. Not advisable against groups of dessies unless you are really pro pilot.
I bring the t2 long range ammo with my rail corms. I think even some of the rarely used navy ammo can hit to 18 k even when you are disrupted but I am not 100% on that. You should be able to fight most of these kiters off. The danger is if they come in close.
I used to try to kite thrashers with an mwd td arty rifters. But it wasn't easy and cap was an issue. Maybe its easier now with the condors and executioners. It no doubt is easy if you have a loki boost. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
YooJin Moon
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 03:29:00 -
[303] - Quote
Another vote for eliminating the drone bay on the Catalyst and adding another Mid slot...otherwise I'm totally psyched to fly it! The Cat is my favorite "affordable" ship. Drones on a destroyer just doesn't make sense anyway (unless they are torpedo interceptor drones - see below). These are supposed to be gun boats of frightening offensive and defensive capability in a small and nimble package (lots of room for argument here of course but this is my ideal destroyer). Destroyers should be able to equal Cruisers in firepower (DPS) but with more numerous smaller guns/racks for tracking numerous targets simultaneously. Granted they shouldn't be tanked as well as a cruiser but they shouldn't be far off either. These changes would make the destroyer class the most numerous ship in any fleet as it should be. Frigates are for privateers and should be far less common in fleet battles outside of specialized roles.
Wanna' make it interesting? Add an anti-torpedo/bomber capability to the class. Maybe something like the ability to lock onto and eliminate torpedoes/bombs while in flight! This would add a very traditional role into the destroyer class while adding a much needed and unique capability to all fleet battles.
Anyway...just my craziness shining through! Kudos to the Devs! Keep up the great work. "We're on a one way elevator to hell! -įGoin' down!" |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:25:00 -
[304] - Quote
Friiiiiiiiiiillls! My Vega is back! YEAAAAAAAAAAA Looking better than ever too.
Oh and the rest of that whole ship balancing thing looks bloody good too. |
Beast Branded
Solaris Project Border World Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:43:00 -
[305] - Quote
-1 for Changing the Cormorant slot config.... Caldari Ships as a whole rely on range and Shields to see them through combat... Low slots are used support rest of the fit |
Albert Spear
Ferrous Infernum Miners' Militia
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:49:00 -
[306] - Quote
While it is all well and good that Destroyers are good for ganking and various advanced activities, they are the best ship available for people with low skill levels.
I am just under 4 months in the game, I fly my Coercer about 60% of the time.
It is important that reasonable fits work for people who are working on building up skills.
I like the Coercer as it is. Some day I will have the skills to do all the cool T2 stuff that is talked about here in the blog, but right now the important thing is that it work as a low skill ship.
I use it for: rat'ing, level 1 and 2 missions, courier duty, cleaning up belts after mining in high sec, and other utility tasks.
Funny but if you look at how destroyers are used in the real world navies today, they get all the odd jobs. That is the way we should look at destroyers - not specialized in anything, but good enough all around to support low risk solo tasks.
I would be perfectly happy if nothing changed with the destroyers - they work as is. I am very OK with the changes proposed by CCP.
Trying to make them better for veteran players while potentially reducing they utility for people who are just getting started would be a very bad thing in my mind.
OBTW - I use a 26km, 70DPS fit with salvager and tractor as a base - it is a great low cost starting point for someone who wants to hunt 0.5 space. The nice thing is as every skill finishes the Coercer just gets better and better, just like a destroyer does for a new captain in the Navy as they learn to really handle it. |
E Potato
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 19:25:00 -
[307] - Quote
I'd like to join many others in suggesting that the 4th mid slot on the Cormorant is a good thing that should stay. It gives a variety of interesting fitting options which are no longer available without it. |
Imsopov II
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 01:55:00 -
[308] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Yes, yes you should. It is very confusing |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 02:26:00 -
[309] - Quote
Reading through the dev blog I think no one can be unhappy. Overall the changes are great.
The dream of every destroyer pilot is another slot -no joke. To be specific:
2 mids and 4 lows on the Coercer
4 mids and 2 lows on the Cormorant
3 mids and 3 lows on the Catalyst
3 mids and 3 lows on the Thrasher
This would really make destroyers that "in between" set of ships -between frigs and cruisers that they ought to be.
Additionally, another core problem with destroyers right now is they aren't really a threat to many frigates at all. They actually lose to most t2 and faction frigs hands down. One more slot would help even out the score, and make fitting and planning matter a lot more.
MJ |
Kaelarian
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Flatline.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:34:00 -
[310] - Quote
Please leave the cormorant's mid slot count alone. If you must change the slot layout take the generally useless highslot.
Right now the cormorant has utility options the other destroyers don't like the silly but sometimes effect ewar fit. A low slot does very little for this ship given the tight fittings for rails (if you want blasters fly a catalyst). As many others have stated it will be reduced to being worse than a thrasher in almost every way most of the time (slightly longer range with sniper fits in the proposed layout) and it will fall back into relative disuse.
The changes to the other 3 are welcome, especially the coercer. I might finally fly one. |
|
Oberus MacKenzie
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Flatline.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:57:00 -
[311] - Quote
What he said ^
The only reasonable use for a Cormorant right now is to fill a sniper role, which it does quite well. If you remove a mid slot the potential max range is greatly decreased and, like almost all other Caldari ships, it is the slowest of its class. A slow, short ranged sniper does not a good choice make.
Forget the whales, save the Cormorants!!! Keep it 4/2 plz. |
Kifette
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 06:54:00 -
[312] - Quote
I think 4 mids is what makes the cormorant interesting, please dont remove one ! |
Bryan D'Arcy
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 11:58:00 -
[313] - Quote
I'm agree with the a lot of posts here. I use the cormorant in what is, imho, his real specificity : long range snipping at + 100 k (no prop mods necessary in this case if you have good bookmarks to warp in and back quickly). The loose of the 4th mid slot will be the end of this role, with no real new replacement role ... except if you like to use it for pve salvaging. |
Tais Macao
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 14:13:00 -
[314] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote: Reading through the dev blog I think no one can be unhappy. Overall the changes are great.
The dream of every destroyer pilot is another slot -no joke. To be specific:
2 mids and 4 lows on the Coercer
4 mids and 2 lows on the Cormorant
3 mids and 3 lows on the Catalyst
3 mids and 3 lows on the Thrasher
This would really make destroyers that "in between" set of ships -between frigs and cruisers that they ought to be.
MJ
Spot on!
I think there is a real danger here of ending up with basically "a destroyer" with 4 different skins. Balance can never be achieved if the definition of balance is to have exactly the same DPS and EHP, range and sig and so on. Basically we would need just one ship and just one weapon system of each size, I honestly don't think that's desirable, and I fear that this is the direction we seem to be headed here.
If given the choice between freedom to try different fits and playing to the racial flavor I've chosen, versus being shoe-horned into a very specific fit in the name of balance, I'll pick freedom any day of the week. Yes, even if that means that other races ships will perform better in certain situations.
Some of us don't necessarily care so much about whether another ship of the same class can squeeze 5 km more range out with 7 months of training. What is important is that all the ships are usefull, fun and viable to fly, and that they are "good", not necessarily "exactly equal in any situation".
While people argue on forever about the difference 3 PG or -2 Sig radius will do in a max-skill, Tech II PvP engagement, I'd like to chime in and say that there will always be an ++ber-ship of the month, it's completely unavoidable. Someone will find a way to equip and rig one of these so that they will outperform the rest, and no up-front design will be able to foresee the ingenuity of players in this respect. If you try to achieve that with an up-front design effort, you'll end up with what is basically a single ship in four different disguises. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 14:38:00 -
[315] - Quote
destroyers have the same amount of slots as a support cruiser how wrong is that?
|
Luka Datitties
Morbidly Obese
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 18:58:00 -
[316] - Quote
If they are meant to be anti-frigate, then let's do that. +5% bonus to Webifier and Warp scrambler range per level. Only got 2 mids? Then you have to chose between warp scram or web.
The counter a destroyer should be a cruiser, not a kiting frig. Perhaps a brawling assault frig could be acceptable though... |
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
490
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 19:22:00 -
[317] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: The reason with the low fitting output of the Catalyst is to prevent it from totally overpowering close range encounters with overwhelming damage. Internal tests and combat we ran showed that a Ion Catalyst setup is quite fine at the moment against the other race counterparts.
Please don't take this the wrong way. How experienced is your internal testing team at PvP?
I ask because the methodology of testing matters a great deal when deciding when something is balanced against something else. If your team is just having both destroyers hitting 'approach' on each other and blazing away, then of course the ion catalyst will win.
In actual combat, though, an enemy dessie will see the ion catalyst coming miles away and jink, kite, web, and/or t/d to make sure that catalyst applies as little of its dps as possible. Without much of a tank, the ion catalyst often melts long before it gets within its preferred engagement envelope. And with limited mids and sub-Minnie speed, the catalyst usually can't keep its target within that envelope long enough to win the fight.
An overly simplistic method of internal testing would lead to greatly exaggerated assessments of Blasters because of their paper DPS. I suggest reviewing the data on how ships are actually used in-game; at the very least, you'll see how lackluster the effect of the 'hybrid fix' was on blaster boats. |
Lili Lu
421
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 23:43:00 -
[318] - Quote
Seriously, get rid of the drone, hell knock it down to 7 turret slots but give it grid and cpu like the other destroyers. Then tell us that a neutron blaster (forget ions even) overpowers other destroyers. Also, it should be able to fit 150 rails. Tell us that 7 150s without an optimal bonus like the corm (which really should only be 7.5% or 5%, and 7.5% or 5% is sufficient for the catalyst falloff bonus) is overpowered.
Also, why not take away the damage bonus on the Thrasher and replace it with a fall-off bonus.
Right now the situation is sorta sad as you try to keep 8 turrets on the catalyst (and figure in it's pita drone damage as well even if most people don't have time for the damn drone interface) but limit its dps with fittings. Forcing it to use second tier guns and only short range ones at that. Setting it like the rest with 7 turrets and no drone then frees it to make use of the falloff on blasters and allows it to fit rails even if it's falloff bonus won't benefit the sniping as much as the optimal benefits the corm.
As for the coercer, having 8 turrets could stay as compensation for the crap cap use bonus and not having a range bonus. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
563
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 00:29:00 -
[319] - Quote
All of the destroyers have an optimal range bonus. All of the destroyers have a tracking bonus. The last bonus is race related. The caldari get a second optimal. The infamous Thrasher gets a damage bonus. The Gallente get falloff. And the Coercer gets a cap useage bonus.
Cormorant - is fine. They have the best range. In all other categories though - DPS, speed, signature - the corm is dead last. It is very niche. The sniper fits will go from a MWD, two SB, one TC, and one TE to trading out the TC to a second TE. The blaster fits were, quite frankly, horrible in the first place and not worth talking about.
Coercer - This is the the clear winner in this revision. It has a triple buff. First, it's fitting grid has increased. Second, the largest tier weapons it can fit just got easier to fit! Lastly, it gained a mid. Those of us that are obsessed with gank will simply slap a sensor booster in that slot and look at new choices the other two points give us for rigs. One more point - you can now make a great beam coercer with these changes.
Thrasher - It's good. It's forgiving. It has weaknesses that are easy to exploit if you're a bitter vet. I started off on this ship and have since moved from it.
Catalyst - I have my fits that work - both 125mm rail and Nuetron. It is a challenging boat to fit. I cheat and use implants. It beats the Thrasher in my hands consistently. I think the Coercer will overshadow it heavily with the new changes. |
Smilingmonk
Sah Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 00:42:00 -
[320] - Quote
If Destroyers are meant to kill faster frigates that are usually equipped with mwd's or ab's, shouldn't they all have at least 3 mid slots so they can each fit a fit a prop, scram, and web and the power grid and cpu to support them? |
|
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 01:02:00 -
[321] - Quote
Smilingmonk wrote:If Destroyers are meant to kill faster frigates that are usually equipped with mwd's or ab's, shouldn't they all have at least 3 mid slots so they can each fit a fit a prop, scram, and web and the power grid and cpu to support them?
Only the Coercer can't do this. Only the Coercer can strike out to long point range with a short-range weapon system. It's fine. Meanwhile, I've dived arty thrashers and killed them under their guns, and I've held AC thrashers at overheated scram range and killed them while surviving their damage with a two-slot active armor tank. Both with T1 frigs that would explode after receiving a stern look from a Coercer. |
Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
278
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 01:21:00 -
[322] - Quote
I don't know about everyone else and I haven't read more then the first post in the thread, but my first thought is, I'd like to see the Destroyer bonuses changed. I never like them and probably never will. Tracking bonus is nice generally speaking but Optimal bonus is kind of messed up.
I don't think I have ever used a Destroyer for sniping and I probably never will, and besides it doesn't really get that much range anyway, even with small artillery, rails, or whatever. Even with what it does get, the DPS is kind of sad.
Besides that, Destroyers are not tanks so to speak, so speed assisted by an MWD or AB is a strength for them and it really improves on their maneuverability and combat readiness as well as improving the ability to mitigate damage with a speed tank.
I've flown all the Destroyers of course, as most people have I imagine, and though a little weak, they are very fun in most regards and I often find my issue with optimal because I'm using close range guns. Regardless of that, I don't think they really need any type of range bonus.
Actually, I'm thinking of Role Bonuses, which you haven't mentioned or grouped with the Destroyer bonuses. Either way, my issue is the same. I don't see a great need for Optimal bonus and always found it out of place given the 50% bonus has virtually no discernible effect on short range guns which benefit more from falloff.
On the other hand, a 50% bonus to falloff would probably be too much and I'd still likely look at it and wonder if it was appropriate or really all that useful.
I also consider the Destroyer as a base model ship and sort of in the same category as a Battlecruiser given it has role bonuses at all. Still a base model ship though. It'd almost be nice to see a new model some time. New ship, not redone model, but that would be nice too.
Then we could have a HAD, (Heavy Assault Destroyer ), or maybe just an AD or an EAD, or both, or something. I really like Destroyers, even if I don't often like their models. Great ship. Kind of the staple of newbiedom.
Right, while I'm at it on the models, could we do something about the Catalyst separating into two distinct pieces that flip and converge along two points of a central axis--seemingly randomly--in space. I'm not sure why that was happening, or if it is still happening, but it happened quite a lot when I was still actively playing and I think I petitioned it and posted here about it once or twice.
I'm not sure what bonus would be better, but Optimal is odd. I think I'd like to see something that doesn't buff it up to much, but clearly sets it apart from other ships in a way that defines its role and makes it much more distinctive.
Maybe:
ECM Countermeasures as a level bonus of +10% to Sensor Strength per level. - Not overpowering but definitely unique and useful in todays battlefield in EVE. Also useful in some missions.
If I think of some others equally unique to that, I'll post them here later. I rather like that one tbh.
I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away. |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 01:41:00 -
[323] - Quote
Adding my support for either adding a slot to all destroyers or giving the cormorant a 7/4/2 layout (-1 high/+1 low)
Not only is that a very nice layout for the cormorant given that it lets you fit a nice shield tank and still have some utility, it also fits in better with the doctrine of Caldari: They have a crapton of mids on all their ships, but don't use utility highs nearly as much as other races (since their utility slots are the mids not used on tank). unless you decide to give the Cormorant an 8th turret slot (which would be nice), that slot isn't really doing much at all. There is absolutely no point to fitting a single missile luncher on anything.
I would, however, be onboard with making the Cormorant kind of like a mini ferox by giving it more launchers but no bonus, so it can be fitted as a missile ship, but the other destroyer (which would be a mini-drake) will perform that job better in most cases. Going by your shiny ship chart, I would say the current destroyers should stay in the attack category being quick, but not having staying power, and the new destroyers should be put in the combat row being slower, but having more combat endurance. Then maybe our mini ferox might be a good hit-and run rocket platform, though, with the bonuses, is more useful in many situations as a rail platform, or possibly a blaster platform. |
Zakeus Djinn
Who Called In The Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 05:27:00 -
[324] - Quote
I think a large problem with the destroyers in general is simply their lack of mid/low slots. What about reducing every destroyer down to 6 high slots, and giving them all an extra low slot and mid slot. The Coercer gets to have a 6/2/5 arrangement, the Cormorant could get 6/5/2, the Catalyst could have 6/3/4, and the Thrasher would have 6/4/3. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
612
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 10:35:00 -
[325] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:All of the destroyers have an optimal range bonus. All of the destroyers have a tracking bonus. The last bonus is race related. The caldari get a second optimal. The infamous Thrasher gets a damage bonus. The Gallente get falloff. And the Coercer gets a cap useage bonus.
Cormorant - is fine. They have the best range. In all other categories though - DPS, speed, signature - the corm is dead last. It is very niche. The sniper fits will go from a MWD, two SB, one TC, and one TE to trading out the TC to a second TE. The blaster fits were, quite frankly, horrible in the first place and not worth talking about.
Coercer - This is the the clear winner in this revision. It has a triple buff. First, it's fitting grid has increased. Second, the largest tier weapons it can fit just got easier to fit! Lastly, it gained a mid. Those of us that are obsessed with gank will simply slap a sensor booster in that slot and look at new choices the other two points give us for rigs. One more point - you can now make a great beam coercer with these changes.
Thrasher - It's good. It's forgiving. It has weaknesses that are easy to exploit if you're a bitter vet. I started off on this ship and have since moved from it.
Catalyst - I have my fits that work - both 125mm rail and Nuetron. It is a challenging boat to fit. I cheat and use implants. It beats the Thrasher in my hands consistently. I think the Coercer will overshadow it heavily with the new changes.
Cormorant now is more than just a sniper ship. The 75 rail ships can fight just about any destroyer within scram range. After the change it may be only for sniping though.
Coercer used to be the best gank and tank destroyer. That will change. You forgot to mention it is losing a low slot. It is currently a great ship for jumping into several enemy frigate ships and having brawls. Especially if you "cheat and use implants." Right now I think I will lose a heat sink in exchange for bigger guns and a tracking computer. Web will just help enemies align out quicker. I will have slightly better range and slightly better tracking but less dps. I don't know this is any great change.
For the kitey long range stuff it is good but for the brawler role I see it as a nerf. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
612
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 10:37:00 -
[326] - Quote
Zakeus Djinn wrote:I think a large problem with the destroyers in general is simply their lack of mid/low slots. What about reducing every destroyer down to 6 high slots, and giving them all an extra low slot and mid slot. The Coercer gets to have a 6/2/5 arrangement, the Cormorant could get 6/5/2, the Catalyst could have 6/3/4, and the Thrasher would have 6/4/3.
I really don't think there is a problem with destroyers.
There may be a problem with td frigates being over powered.
I'm just glad ccp didn't further boost tds to cover missiles too. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Heribeck Weathers
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 18:54:00 -
[327] - Quote
I support the Corm 4 mid slot movement. tho givign all the dessys 1 more slot would be nice, maybe just drop their stats a tad to make up for it. |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 23:36:00 -
[328] - Quote
I think losing a high/turret would be a very good answer to adding an additional needed slot. It would add more flavor to the individual races and prevent dessies from being OP. In turn maybe a tiny boost to damage via ship bonuses. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
485
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 00:07:00 -
[329] - Quote
+1. This man knows what he's talking about.
|
Bob Niac
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 04:39:00 -
[330] - Quote
Not for nothing but did any1 pickup on the title? I mean "existing" destroyers? where are the non-existing? We goetting new destroyers? Hmmm.... I <3 Logistics: Pilot of all -įT2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use. |
|
|
|
|
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 |