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) |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 09:56:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, I love you! Now give ALL the Gallente boats ship mass love (especially the Thorax) <3 |
The VC's
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 11:21:00 -
[422] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.
Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fine
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:01:00 -
[423] - Quote
The VC's wrote:Major Killz wrote:Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot. Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fine
I too am and have always been a fan of the current Coercer and even 1 mid slot Retribution. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
312
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:12:00 -
[424] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:The VC's wrote:Major Killz wrote:Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot. Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fine I too am and have always been a fan of the current Coercer and even 1 mid slot Retribution. I'll be happy to join this enlightened show of hands.
By the by, losing a low is not merely the loss of a HS but the potential for tank, tracking, speed, grid/cpu, ECCM .. you name it. Taking a low from a midslot slot deficient race such as Amarr is like making all Minmatar ships have split weapon bonuses (read: cripples most if not all of them).
SHORTER!!: Highslot to midslot, not lowslot to midslot. Losing 12.5% dps is a whole lot more palpable than losing ~25% and/or all the other options a low represents for Amarr.
|
The VC's
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:45:00 -
[425] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Highslot to midslot, not lowslot to midslot. Losing 12.5% dps is a whole lot more palpable than losing ~25% and/or all the other options a low represents for Amarr.
My feelings exactly. But we'll be out-whined on that one for sure. Even with the new version I'l probably fit a Sebo or a Mse in the mid.
My memoirs will be entitled "Bugger, I trained Amarr! or how I learned to love the lowslot and win." |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 13:34:00 -
[426] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote: [...] "Its ok for the catalyst to have a stupid set of bonuses because you can mitigate the stupidity a little by using a precious lowslot for a tracking enhancer" isn't exactly a compelling argument.
Everyone and their mother fits ACs to a Thrasher, effectively wasting the optimal range bonus. Does that make it a terrible ship with stupid set of boni ? No.
P.S: Split weapon boni would awesome if only they'd been properly implemented |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 13:41:00 -
[427] - Quote
i don't see why the existing dessies shouldn't all be close range dps fast attack ships with falloff bonuses and allow the new dessies to be the tankier range ships |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
903
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 16:36:00 -
[428] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: [...] "Its ok for the catalyst to have a stupid set of bonuses because you can mitigate the stupidity a little by using a precious lowslot for a tracking enhancer" isn't exactly a compelling argument. Everyone and their mother fits ACs to a Thrasher, effectively wasting the optimal range bonus. Does that make it a terrible ship with stupid set of boni ? No.
No, it means that autocannons are so hilariously effective (especially with such lenient fitting requirements) they're the no-brainer choice despite the 'missing' bonus.
The fact that one of the thrasher's hull bonuses is damage (something none of the others get) doesn't hurt either. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lord Distortion
20th Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 21:31:00 -
[429] - Quote
Increase warp speed on Destroyers to 4au? ( maybe 6au to match their targets?) 3au makes them as slow as cruisers.
Speed in all forms is the biggest factor with smaller vessels 8) |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
907
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:52:00 -
[430] - Quote
Lord Distortion wrote:Increase warp speed on Destroyers to 4au? ( maybe 6au to match their targets?) 3au makes them as slow as cruisers. Speed in all forms is the biggest factor with smaller vessels 8)
What actually needs to happen with these is that the rate of acceleration and deceleration in warp is tied in some form to the size (or a related statistic such as mass) of the ship. As it is right now warp speed is largely irrelevant because typically 90% of the time spent in warp is either getting up to top speed or slowing down to re-emerge into realspace where everyone accelerates and decelerates at the same rate (you can see this when you enter warp at the same time as a vessel with a different warp speed to your own). Changing this would have all sorts of interesting consequences for frigates and destroyers. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Lord Distortion
20th Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:44:00 -
[431] - Quote
That would be nice, Would also be a fun perk for the Combat-Recon Classes? But the AU increase would be the lazy option for CCP 8) |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 08:04:00 -
[432] - Quote
So, the Catalyst changes alluded to in the New Destroyer thread?
I'm assuming swapping the Optimal Bonus for a Falloff bonus?
[deadpan]Or maybe 2 x Damage bonus and a tracking role bonus, just for some Hi-sec ganker loving?[/deadpan] |
Nomistrav
High Flyers Unclaimed.
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 20:55:00 -
[433] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:You wish is my command After some more internal and external play testings, we are fairly happy with existing destroyers, except for the Catalyst, as mentioned in the new destroyer balancing thread.
We want to increase the fittings on it so it is able to mount neutron blasters, or even have a hope to fit 150mm railguns (with fitting implants / rigs). However, by doing so we are removing its tiny dronebay to make its role more focused on turrets and keep a clear distinction with the new Gallente drone destroyer.
- Powergrid increased from 60 to 70, CPU increased from 170 to 178
- Drone bay and bandwidth removed
Doing so approximately keeps the same damage potential as before, except you have slightly more range as using neutrons instead of ions. It also means you don't have to rely on a destructible damage source (light drone) to compensate for your downgraded guns.
Also, we want to reduce mass on existing destroyers to make them more noticeable against the new hulls. Changes are the most important for the ships that needed the most, while the thrasher was slightly tuned down. For instance, we estimate around 200m/s to be gained on MWD speeds for a Catalyst.
- Coercer: mass decreased from 1665000 to 1650000, agility increased from 2.75 to 2.77 to keep close align time
- Cormorant: mass decreased from 1892000 to 1700000, agility increased from 2.5 to 2.78 to keep close align time
- Catalyst: mass decreased from 1761000 to 1550000, agility increased from 2.45 to 2.76 to keep close align time
- Thrasher: mass increased from 1542000 to 1600000, agility decreased from 2.96 to 2.8 to keep close align time
We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front.
Well, hang on for a second, I thought Caldari Hybrid systems were more about optimal range and sniping than Gallente Hybrid systems..? This is shown in their faction turrets with Caldari/Guristas having more range (and less fitting requirements) and Gallente/Serpentis being more about damage..
So wouldn't it make sense for the Catalyst to be more of a close range brawler (especially with the additional +200m/s with MWD) and the Cormorant to be the long range type? I mean - come on - as things currently stand you're using the same skills for the same weapon system and the same skill for -BOTH- destroyer types so it's not like you're having to choose between the two.... |
Lili Lu
523
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:09:00 -
[434] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: We also had a look at the Catalyst bonuses, but we find them acceptable as they are right now - swapping turret optimal range to falloff would be detrimental to long range Catalyst setups, especially with the fittings changes, that's why no modifications are planned on that front. [/list] Well, hang on for a second, I thought Caldari Hybrid systems were more about optimal range and sniping than Gallente Hybrid systems..? This is shown in their faction turrets with Caldari/Guristas having more range (and less fitting requirements) and Gallente/Serpentis being more about damage.. So wouldn't it make sense for the Catalyst to be more of a close range brawler (especially with the additional +200m/s with MWD) and the Cormorant to be the long range type? I mean - come on - as things currently stand you're using the same skills for the same weapon system and the same skill for -BOTH- destroyer types so it's not like you're having to choose between the two.... Relax fella. What Ytterbium was trying to say is the 50% optimal "role bonus" that all destroyers get is not going to be specially changed for the Catalyst to a 50% falloff role bonus, which some people itt were asking for. The ship bonus itself though will still be 10% per level for falloff and not optimal.
The catalyst got a buff with the mass change as it will translate to more speed. So if you blaster fit you should be able to get on top of your target much faster. Whether that will be anough to cure the deficiency of the blaster catalyst awaits testing.
Meanwhile, the pg buff also allows rail fits now, which is a good thing for role choices. It means if you gang is deciding to take out a group of sniper destroyers the Catalyst is not left out. However, I still think they should be paring back the optimal bonus on Cormorant because at its present 10% strength it synergizes too well with the role bonus. It should be 7.5% or even 5% imo. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 23:13:00 -
[435] - Quote
I have no idea why some in this thread seem more interested in falloff over optimal. These destroyers were made to use long range weapon systems, so a optimal bonus makes sense. Also, some of the new destroyers will be subpar to the old ones. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers Unclaimed.
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 03:36:00 -
[436] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:I have no idea why some in this thread seem more interested in falloff over optimal. These destroyers were made to use long range weapon systems, so a optimal bonus makes sense. Also, some of the new destroyers will be subpar to the old ones.
Well currently the new Gallente destroyer over-shadows the Catalyst by a long shot as Drones (assuming they aren't destroyed, which is still a rather pressing issue considering they're "dumb" in a sense you can't tell them how to behave) can dictate range. The catalyst is restricted to either extremely close range (blasters) with high damage output or long range (railguns) with... Well, we'll not get into that.
Gallente behavior as a whole focuses on high damage output and I like the way things are going with the new destroyer.
Thank you for the elaboration as well Lili Lu - that makes a lot more sense than changing the entire role bonus around. However, I will say that destroyer's role bonus should be getting the addition of orbital bombardment with Dust 514 coming out, so I'm still a bit curious as to whether the optimal range bonus will be axed entirely in favor of that or if the orbital bombardment role bonus will simply be tacked on.
Either way - Sniping Destroyers really don't work out well in any case so it's a moot point. Unless you have a high alpha (which arti is better for in the first place) the moment the enemy (frigate) gets within range (something that all frigates are generally good at) you might as well just roll over and **** yourself. This is why the new destroyers of both Gallente/Caldari factions will -completely- overshadow the Catalyst/Comorant in terms of long range warfare.
With that in mind - I'd honestly rather the existing destroyers get re-worked entirely and act more as Battlecruisers of the small-craft world, having a little more formidable defenses and sacrificing their high damage output. Perfect world though |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
657
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:11:00 -
[437] - Quote
I have been flying destroyers more then any other ship since 2008 and I will tell you point blank that the rail catalyst is the most lethal dessy I have ever been in. It puts out over 400 DPS to 13 km with another 13km of falloff. When you overheat it's guns you get a shot off every 1.53 seconds. You can get under the guns but it is very challenging to do so. Dramiels are on the menu when I'm in a rail cat- something I wouldn't even consider in an arty thrasher. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 07:56:00 -
[438] - 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?
...snip
By default, all these ships should be high base CPU and low base PG so that they are encouraged to fit weapon upgrades and not extenders/plates.
Please post the 460 dps coercer fit with the existing slot layouts, as I can only get it to 400 dps heated at the moment! :) |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
187
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 09:34:00 -
[439] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:Please post the 460 dps coercer fit with the existing slot layouts, as I can only get it to 400 dps heated at the moment! :)
[Coercer, I'm a sentry] Co-Processor II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Small Energy Burst Aerator II
543 dps OH with a 3% implant. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:16:00 -
[440] - Quote
Oh I've never tried conflagration S before... thought they were beam crystals.
Hmm the T2 rig will be very expensive I think? |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
187
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:19:00 -
[441] - Quote
Uh... Conflag is the T2 short-range ammo for pulses.
Gleam is the short range ammo for beams.
Dude. C'mon.
EDIT : you evil ninja-editor :< |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:25:00 -
[442] - Quote
Ok, sorry for the ninja-edits :P I posted again, then thought about it :P wrong way around!
I guess my missing dps is mainly from using INMF which I thought were the highest dps crystal to use. I'll check out the conflag ones and see.
I basically had same setup, so wondering where all the missing dps has gone.
My skills aren't maxxed though, but missing 100 dps is a lot! |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
134
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:26:00 -
[443] - Quote
who can explain the tier 1 and tier 2 destroyers to me?
They seem to be the same. There is a ship - Caracal, it can outperform and WTF destroy both of them. And caracal has more DPS, more tank, missiles that kick small ship's aaaaas.
Destroyers offer poor survivability, especially compared to assault frigates.
In fact destroyers are one shot ship wrecks. Their match is shuttles and capsules. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:28:00 -
[444] - Quote
The caracal has a poor tank also, and is a kind of one-shot pony, as it needs high alpha to kill said destroyers quickly. Plus... a caracal is a cruiser... oO |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:48:00 -
[445] - Quote
Opertone wrote:who can explain the tier 1 and tier 2 destroyers to me?
They seem to be the same. There is a ship - Caracal, it can outperform and WTF destroy both of them. And caracal has more DPS, more tank, missiles that kick small ship's aaaaas.
Destroyers offer poor survivability, especially compared to assault frigates.
In fact destroyers are one shot ship wrecks. Their match is shuttles and capsules. It's slow, bulky, takes a while to target smaller ships (compared to dessies), if it fits those, it's sub-par against other cruisers. It gives frigates plenty of time to warp off, and all but the slowest frigates can burn away from a Caracal at will.
Destroyers on the other hand, are still slow, and can't fit a tank. Except the Thrasher. But the benefit is extreme amounts of damage, and solid range. Destroyers have high tracking speed, significant DPS, and are a bit smaller, and so a *tiny* bit less vulnerable to larger ships.
AML Caracals actually have quite low DPS, but they're good because all the DPS is actually applied to frigate sized targets, and they can fit a solid tank. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
699
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:14:00 -
[446] - Quote
The Cormorant needs the 4th midslot a LOT more then two lowslots, because as an anti-frigate sniper, tracking is more important than damage. really don't think the Cormorant was imbalanced as it is now and fits it's role as sniper well.
The new slot layout is breaking something when trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:20:00 -
[447] - Quote
Slot layout of destroyers as they stand is pretty much fine. Coercer suffers somewhat from not having a second mid slot for tackle, but it is great in gangs and with right fit you can actually solo kill many things in your weight class before they can realize they're boned and warp out.
The Cormorant and Catalyst can both use the fittings buff they're getting, but they should leave the Cormorant's slot layout. The speed buff is good, but it doesn't go far enough. It bugs me quite a bit that many cruisers are going to be faster that dessies. I would aim for about attack cruiser speed for destroyers. But I'm biased. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:20:00 -
[448] - Quote
How about you remove that pointless highslot on the cormorant and move it to a mid. Makinga 7/4/2 layout.
The catalyst needs 3 mids to be effective unfortunately, it cannot pin down frigs that come within scram range.
The coercer is much better now and it fairly awesome.
The thrasher is the thrasher as usual. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
560
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:54:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:The Cormorant needs the 4th midslot a LOT more then two lowslots, because as an anti-frigate sniper, tracking is more important than damage. really don't think the Cormorant was imbalanced as it is now and fits it's role as sniper well.
But Tracking Enhancer > Tracking Computer..... |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 23:45:00 -
[450] - Quote
The cormorant needs 4 mids, one way or another.
Think of the nifty ewar setups, the double mse setups, the double asb setups :( |
|
|
|
|
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 |