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) |
fenistil
Defensive Parameter The Mandalorians
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 08:25:00 -
[151] - Quote
Gush, FIX CRUISERS instead or as well... Dessies are nice to have but most of the players are not in FW http://defp.co.cc/recruitment |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 08:34:00 -
[152] - Quote
I'm not blown away by these changes. I really don't like the fact that the Corm is loosing it's mid slot. The Catalyst is still too difficult to fit and the Coercer might just work but is still lacluster compared to the power of the Thrasher. The changes seem to just try and balance them into each other instead of keeping any flavour. I would suggest:
Coercer: Move a low slot to a mid slot. Drop the laser cap usage bonus for a 5% armour resist bonus. This way it keeps its style of excellent armour tank and gains the mid it needs whilst leaving it (more) vulnerable to energy neuts.
Cormorant: +1 turret harpoint Keep the 8/4/1 slot layout Adjust PG/CPU
Catalyst: Drop the falloff bonus. It's a split bonus and we all know they are stupid. Find another bonus. I really like the 10% armour rep bonus the Incurses gets. Makes that ship great fun. Increase fitting ability and fix the pathetic capacitor recharge rate.
Thrasher: Just make fitting it harder. It has way too much PG and CPU. |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 08:51:00 -
[153] - Quote
dont want to be picky but you didnt add the 125hp to the thrashers hull - Nulla Curas |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 10:02:00 -
[154] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Coercer: Move a low slot to a mid slot. Drop the laser cap usage bonus for a 5% armour resist bonus. This way it keeps its style of excellent armour tank and gains the mid it needs whilst leaving it (more) vulnerable to energy neuts.
It only takes twenty seconds or so in EVEHQ to create this variant of the Coercer.
With DLP, Scorch, an MWD, and a warp disruptor, it'd cap itself out in 1min 10sec. With max skills. You only gain 40sec from turning the MWD off. The TQ Coercer is stable at 63% with the MWD turned off. I'm used to pvp ships not being cap stable, especially small ships, but this is a case where the Coercer will shut its own guns off before the end of any engagement. You don't need to neut it.
Tiericide won't continue to blow people away when it moves on from retrofitting completely useless T1 frigates, but yeah, these changes... |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 10:37:00 -
[155] - Quote
I have to agree with Kuehnelt. Coercer has a really bad cap problem and it is not really possible to make any use in fleets with this ship. You run faster out of cap than you can imagine. TBH Thrasher is so much overpowered in comparison ti the other dessies that I believe that only an artillery nerf can do sth. I mean artillery is really tooooo good. Thrasher can everthing. Shortrange damage and tank monster, long range killing machine. Aditionally it is one or even the fasted destroyer. It has no weaknesses. Weird. I will say it again: Buff the other destroyers more (coercer more cap and cpu, cormorant needs REALLY more buff, catalyst I don-Št know) and nerf artillery. Main problem with Coercer is really the risk. No Cormorant, Catalyst or Thrasher needs to take 2.5mil isk ammunition minimum to be able to fire all weapons. Coercer for long and short range ammo at least costs minimum 5mil isk. No other dessie has such big risks. Again: big Risk= good ship, little risk=bad ship. Thats how it should be. It wouldn-Št even be that bad if Coercer would be a litle bit op (only a little bit and not minmatar like op) because of these risks. You want fast skirmish in a Thrasher? 0.8m in ammo is more than enough. You want fast skirmish in a coercer and be able to shoot at long and short range? You need 5mil isk in ammo minimum in cargo. That is more than 6 times the amount Thrasher needs. And additionally with these stats a coercer can fire a minute with good skills. Thrasher can fire almost the same damage until he goes out of ammo. That is really not a good rebalancing. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 10:52:00 -
[156] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Coercer: Move a low slot to a mid slot. Drop the laser cap usage bonus for a 5% armour resist bonus. This way it keeps its style of excellent armour tank and gains the mid it needs whilst leaving it (more) vulnerable to energy neuts. It only takes twenty seconds or so in EVEHQ to create this variant of the Coercer. With DLP, Scorch, an MWD, and a warp disruptor, it'd cap itself out in 1min 10sec. With max skills. You only gain 40sec from turning the MWD off. The TQ Coercer is stable at 63% with the MWD turned off. I'm used to pvp ships not being cap stable, especially small ships, but this is a case where the Coercer will shut its own guns off before the end of any engagement. You don't need to neut it. Tiericide won't continue to blow people away when it moves on from retrofitting completely useless T1 frigates, but yeah, these changes...
You could easily buff the Coercers capacitor a little bit to compensate. I'm not sure how long it takes a Catalyst to cap itself out but it can't be much longer. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
306
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 10:55:00 -
[157] - Quote
Quote:Coercer has a really bad cap problem and it is not really possible to make any use in fleets with this ship. You run faster out of cap than you can imagine.
When solo though, the -10% laser cap usage bonus is next to worthless.
This is why the cap usage bonus sucks. It's so situational. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 11:12:00 -
[158] - Quote
Don't move the midslot on the cormy. Move a high. That will make it "different" instead of a thrasher nobody flies.
|
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 11:12:00 -
[159] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:You could easily buff the Coercers capacitor a little bit to compensate. I'm not sure how long it takes a Catalyst to cap itself out but it can't be much longer.
No, it's much, much longer. DLP activation cost is twice that of the highest-tier blaster, and DLP cycle faster.
Coercer capacitor would not need to be buffed "a little bit" to compensate for losing the cap use bonus. It'd need more than a halving of its recharge rate, or it'd need more than a doubling of its capacitor amount. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 11:22:00 -
[160] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Coercer: Move a low slot to a mid slot. Drop the laser cap usage bonus for a 5% armour resist bonus. This way it keeps its style of excellent armour tank and gains the mid it needs whilst leaving it (more) vulnerable to energy neuts. It only takes twenty seconds or so in EVEHQ to create this variant of the Coercer.
So how else does it perform with a 5% armour resist bonus and a 8/2/3 slot layout with the other proposed stats? (just out of curiousity. I'm at work and can't really start installing 3rd party stuff that isn't work related) |
|
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 11:44:00 -
[161] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:So how else does it perform with a 5% armour resist bonus and a 8/2/3 slot layout with the other proposed stats? (just out of curiousity. I'm at work and can't really start installing 3rd party stuff that isn't work related)
*shrug*, that takes more than 30 seconds.
But OK, a +5% resist bonus, including the proposed Winter changes, gives you 14k EHP (19k EM, 14k Thermal, 12k other) with a damage control, 400mm plate (which fits easily), EANM, and trimarks.
The TQ Coercer is better at everything but the EM resist with a similar fit (+1 EANM), but it's harder to fit. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 13:03:00 -
[162] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:So how else does it perform with a 5% armour resist bonus and a 8/2/3 slot layout with the other proposed stats? (just out of curiousity. I'm at work and can't really start installing 3rd party stuff that isn't work related) *shrug*, that takes more than 30 seconds. But OK, a +5% resist bonus, including the proposed Winter changes, gives you 14k EHP (19k EM, 14k Thermal, 12k other) with a damage control, 400mm plate (which fits easily), EANM, and trimarks. The TQ Coercer is better at everything but the EM resist with a similar fit (+1 EANM), but it's harder to fit.
I'd fly that. Even with a poor capacitor. |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 13:05:00 -
[163] - Quote
I think there's a place for homogenisation, and a place for differentiation.
For example, every race needs an exploration frig, an fast tackle frig, a basic combat frig. Each race needs a decent PvE frig and cruiser. These are mandatory so new players don't get locked out by their racial choice.
Beyond that, I think differentiation is good - different races ships should fly quite differently. It's good for intermediate stuff like dessies, E-War ships, etc to be quite different. I think it's good that they have different strengths and require different tactics to do well. I don't want to see all four dessies being catalyst or thrasher but with a different (but identically functioning) weapon type.
Once we are at intermediate level, it's not that big an ask to re-train into another race's ships and guns. The core skills transfer, and the time to reach semi-decent isn't that long. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Gabriel DiCozza
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:13:00 -
[164] - Quote
Coercer I like the Coercer as is. I fit it full gank (heat sinks and tracking) in high sec for factional warfare. I carry middle modules in the cargohold to be able to switch. I attack everything under cruiser size and aim to kill it in less than 20 sec. For this niche use of the ship, I do not feel the need for a change. A bit more of CPU (for better gank) would be neat and I would not spit on a smaller signature radius (to escape camps), though. In my case, the tank is gtfo before 20 sec have passed. Achernar (blogging stuff) |
None ofthe Above
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:19:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
I like the direction you are going here, but I would like to point out something you may have missed.
In the frigate rebalance and tiercide, many particularly lower tier ships where boosted to come in line with the working useful tier 3 ships. The lower tier vessels had limited slot layouts that made them difficult to fit with enough utility to be worth flying.
Destroyers are essentially tier 1 ships that never had improved higher tier vessels introduced. Perhaps the Destroyer buff a way back could arguably put them on tier 2 status.
Anyway, I think you may want to consider across the board buffs, add 1 mid or low, because these guys are right when they complain about losing a mid on the Cormorant or a low on the Coercer. It is a very tight fit making these Destroyers worth flying, in the same way tier 1 frigates were in some cases. Add the slot, no need to move it. I think I would go with one more low for both the Catalyst and the Thrasher. (Makes the Thrasher flexible for armor or shield like many of the other Minnie ships.) Other possibility for the Cat might be to skip the slot and up the drones capacity and bandwidth to be able to fly a full wing of light scouts.
And as useful as the utility high is, not sure why the Cormorant can't have 8 turret hardpoints as well, particularly if you are introducing a missile destroyer in the same time frame.
While looking at new destroyers it may also be a good time to reconsider that Aegis proposal that I am sure you are familiar with. Ships with defensive capabilities for intercepting or otherwise mitigating incoming attacks. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Marcus Loon Black
V.O.I.D. The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:47:00 -
[166] - Quote
Quote: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.
Thank You
Love the ship , it is a powerful platform.. only problem was 1 Mid slot and rig space was used to equip ACR's just to power the Guns .. a skill intensive fit .. especially for a New Pilot when Destroyers would be ideally a step up from frigs. as far as the sig getting a little bump .. I dont see a problem it is a Bigger ship then a Frig and it would be drawing more Power to run its 8 GUNS so +4 to sig radius isn't something to worry about. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 01:30:00 -
[167] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Ytterbium,
Destroyers are essentially tier 1 ships that never had improved higher tier vessels introduced. Perhaps the Destroyer buff a way back could arguably put them on tier 2 status.
Anyway, I think you may want to consider across the board buffs, add 1 mid or low, because these guys are right when they complain about losing a mid on the Cormorant or a low on the Coercer.
This is spot-on. The mids and lows are so gimped on the current hulls that their only combat use is really 'suicide gank' at this point. Drop the highs down to six slots if you like, but these hulls really could use 1 or 2 extra mid/low slots. The closest example is the tier 3 BC's - they've got a similar (though larger) role, 8 high slots and 8 slots divided amongst the lows and mids, yet they're hardly considered overpowered on defence.
Destroyers only have 5 slots in low/mid at the moment (FRIGATES GET MORE), consider bumping that up instead of just re-arranging them again. |
Tex Bloodhunter
Konstrukteure der Zukunft The Initiative.
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 02:54:00 -
[168] - Quote
When aiming for a role for the destroyers please be more specific. They are supposed to be anti-frigate ships. So why do they have so little tank when compared to frigs (also T2 variants). More damage but less tank doesn't make them solid frigate killers. Fights still are closer than they should be. At the end of the day destroyers are slow enough so that frigs should be able to avoid the fight. But when they get into the fight destroyers should really kick some frigate ass. That also includes some kind of robustness.
For comparison: A hurricane or a myrmidon (anti-cruiser role) usually doesn't need to be afraid of HACs since they have more DPS and more tank but sacrifice mobility. In a destroyer vs. assault ship the destroyers don't look too good in their anti-frig role. Most of the time (unless a highly specific trick fitting is used) they have lower/similar DPS, less tank and less mobility/range control. That just can't be right.
Also, taking away the Cormorants 4th med slot breaks the ship since all slots are needed to fit decent range control and tank. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 06:27:00 -
[169] - Quote
Up to here almost nobody is happy with these changes. The answer why is simple. It is really hard work to get the other destroyers on par with the Thrasher. Minmatars have the best weapons, speed and so on. Especially in fw Minmatar weapons are awesome. Example? Ever tried to kill minnies plexers with amarrian ships? They are perfectly tanked versus em and heat, that means vs lasers. So it is not that easy to shoot such a fast and perfectly tanked ship versus your laser weapons. But when a minnie wants to shoot an amarr plexer it is much easier: The amarr plexer will be armored versus rats what means against kinetic and explosive, the minnie knows it and chooses heat ammo. Simple. Another example? Arty Thrasher is awesome. Fast lock, really good damage and almost no cap usage. Coercer can do the same but maximum 2 minutes. LOL. With these changes Coercer can do the same for two minutes. Seriously: To get the other three destroyers on par with Thrasher there are probably only two options: Give them one slot more than Thrasher or nerf artillery. I see no other option. The Thrasher is such an overpowered killing machine in comparison to the others that it can do really everything. I know people who have flown Coercer for months and swore never to fly a minnie ship. Until yet these people spit and laugh about Coercer and fly the Thrasher. This Minmatar dessie is simply toooooo overpowered in comparison to the others.
I repeat that there are probably only two options to get the other destroyers on par with Thrasher: a) nerf artillery or b) give cormorant and catalyst an additional low or mid slot and give the coercer REALLY more cap or also another low slot. The cap option would be the better one because even with an additional slot Coercer will faster run out of cap as you can imagine and is useless in larger fleet fights.
Edit: I forgot to mention one inportant issue. The Coercer is BY FAR the most expensive ship of all four dessies because it has always to take minimum 5mil isk in ammo to get all guns firing. |
Kalaratiri
Skadi's Call Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
222
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 10:29:00 -
[170] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Up to here almost nobody is happy with these changes. The answer why is simple. It is really hard work to get the other destroyers on par with the Thrasher. Minmatars have the best weapons, speed and so on. Especially in fw Minmatar weapons are awesome. Example? Ever tried to kill minnies plexers with amarrian ships? They are perfectly tanked versus em and heat, that means vs lasers. So it is not that easy to shoot such a fast and perfectly tanked ship versus your laser weapons. But when a minnie wants to shoot an amarr plexer it is much easier: The amarr plexer will be armored versus rats what means against kinetic and explosive, the minnie knows it and chooses heat ammo. Simple. Another example? Arty Thrasher is awesome. Fast lock, really good damage and almost no cap usage. Coercer can do the same but maximum 2 minutes. LOL. With these changes Coercer can do the same for two minutes. Seriously: To get the other three destroyers on par with Thrasher there are probably only two options: Give them one slot more than Thrasher or nerf artillery. I see no other option. The Thrasher is such an overpowered killing machine in comparison to the others that it can do really everything. I know people who have flown Coercer for months and swore never to fly a minnie ship. Until yet these people spit and laugh about Coercer and fly the Thrasher. This Minmatar dessie is simply toooooo overpowered in comparison to the others.
I repeat that there are probably only two options to get the other destroyers on par with Thrasher: a) nerf artillery or b) give cormorant and catalyst an additional low or mid slot and give the coercer REALLY more cap or also another low slot. The cap option would be the better one because even with an additional slot Coercer will faster run out of cap as you can imagine and is useless in larger fleet fights.
Edit: I forgot to mention one inportant issue. The Coercer is BY FAR the most expensive ship of all four dessies because it has always to take minimum 5mil isk in ammo to get all guns firing.
Not sure I agree with this at all.
Artillery is fine. If anything, it's worse than ACs with barrage.
Thrasher is, well, not exactly fine, but certainly not as rediculously OP as you are claiming. I've seen thrashers die to catalysts, rail corms and coercers. The coercers are usually nano/dps fit, and they beat the thrasher (if it doesn't just leave), because the only way for a thrasher to catch a speed coercer is to be shield tanked. And that makes it vulnerable to lasers.
But coercers are mostly bad and need another mid slot
|
|
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 12:25:00 -
[171] - Quote
Quote: Not sure I agree with this at all.
Artillery is fine. If anything, it's worse than ACs with barrage.
Thrasher is, well, not exactly fine, but certainly not as rediculously OP as you are claiming. I've seen thrashers die to catalysts, rail corms and coercers. The coercers are usually nano/dps fit, and they beat the thrasher (if it doesn't just leave), because the only way for a thrasher to catch a speed coercer is to be shield tanked. And that makes it vulnerable to lasers.
But coercers are mostly bad and need another mid slot Big smile
Then you might explain me when Thrasher isn-Št that much overpowered why I see Thrasher fleets consisting of six up to twelve and more Thrashers every day and never ever saw a catalyst, cormorant or coercer fleet? |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 13:09:00 -
[172] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote: Not sure I agree with this at all.
Artillery is fine. If anything, it's worse than ACs with barrage.
Thrasher is, well, not exactly fine, but certainly not as rediculously OP as you are claiming. I've seen thrashers die to catalysts, rail corms and coercers. The coercers are usually nano/dps fit, and they beat the thrasher (if it doesn't just leave), because the only way for a thrasher to catch a speed coercer is to be shield tanked. And that makes it vulnerable to lasers.
But coercers are mostly bad and need another mid slot Big smile
Then you might explain me when Thrasher isn-Št that much overpowered why I see Thrasher fleets consisting of six up to twelve and more Thrashers every day and never ever saw a catalyst, cormorant or coercer fleet?
first off all because balancing just started. but also, because bittervets tend to push new players into training minmatar because there supposed to be winmatar. the thrasher is a good and forgiving ship and when everyone tells you its the best, well lots of people end up flying the thrasher. it certainly does not need a buff, but a mighty blow with the nerf bat would also be wrong. it will take some time to get people used to the idea that there are alternatives around.
lets just wait for this to get onto sisi and check out how it works. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 13:21:00 -
[173] - Quote
Quote:first off all because balancing just started. but also, because bittervets tend to push new players into training minmatar because there supposed to be winmatar. the thrasher is a good and forgiving ship and when everyone tells you its the best, well lots of people end up flying the thrasher. it certainly does not need a buff, but a mighty blow with the nerf bat would also be wrong. it will take some time to get people used to the idea that there are alternatives around.
lets just wait for this to get onto sisi and check out how it works.
Well if this gets really into sisi and then in the game I should really better train minmatar ships. And yes most of Minmatar ships ARE winmatar. Before inferno best T1 frigate, best destroyer (by far), best T1 cruiser (rupture) and best bc (Hurricane). And no let us not talk about the drake. Everybody cries nerf the drake but hurricane is many times better and I wonder why everybody only cries because of the drake. I will stay at it: Buff the others more or nerf Thrasher for example by nerfing artillery. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
506
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 13:27:00 -
[174] - Quote
The biggest culprit for Thrasher dominance is it's damage bonus. None of the other destroyers have it. It effectively allows the Thrasher to field 8.75 turrets. There are only two ways to 'fix' this.
The first would be to cut all destroyers to seven turrets and swap out one bonus for a damage bonus. I made that suggestion earlier in this thread. Another way? Increase the Thrasher to eight turrets and swap its damage bonus for a falloff bonus. While this seems, like the Catalyst, unfocused, it allows the player to choose arty or AC per his/her play style. It also pulls the Thrasher back into line with the other destroyers. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 13:40:00 -
[175] - Quote
Galphii wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Ytterbium,
Destroyers are essentially tier 1 ships that never had improved higher tier vessels introduced. Perhaps the Destroyer buff a way back could arguably put them on tier 2 status.
Anyway, I think you may want to consider across the board buffs, add 1 mid or low, because these guys are right when they complain about losing a mid on the Cormorant or a low on the Coercer.
This is spot-on. The mids and lows are so gimped on the current hulls that their only combat use is really 'suicide gank' at this point. Drop the highs down to six slots if you like, but these hulls really could use 1 or 2 extra mid/low slots. The closest example is the tier 3 BC's - they've got a similar (though larger) role, 8 high slots and 8 slots divided amongst the lows and mids, yet they're hardly considered overpowered on defence. Destroyers only have 5 slots in low/mid at the moment (FRIGATES GET MORE), consider bumping that up instead of just re-arranging them again.
A general frig has 10 slots all around
Dessies have around 13..
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 14:16:00 -
[176] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote:first off all because balancing just started. but also, because bittervets tend to push new players into training minmatar because there supposed to be winmatar. the thrasher is a good and forgiving ship and when everyone tells you its the best, well lots of people end up flying the thrasher. it certainly does not need a buff, but a mighty blow with the nerf bat would also be wrong. it will take some time to get people used to the idea that there are alternatives around.
lets just wait for this to get onto sisi and check out how it works. Well if this gets really into sisi and then in the game I should really better train minmatar ships. And yes most of Minmatar ships ARE winmatar. Before inferno best T1 frigate, best destroyer (by far), best T1 cruiser (rupture) and best bc (Hurricane). And no let us not talk about the drake. Everybody cries nerf the drake but hurricane is many times better and I wonder why everybody only cries because of the drake. I will stay at it: Buff the others more or nerf Thrasher for example by nerfing artillery.
when this proposed changes hit sisi and people start testing, there will be another round of changes. when the thrasher seems to be chuck norris in a rusty coat, im sure there will be tweaks to correct that. theorycrafting is nice but not everything. at this point we need to get out into the field.
stating the situation before inferno is not an accurate representation of the situation now nor can it be used to state whats going to come. for every ship you mentioned i can name one minmatar ship which is nearly never flown and percieved as utterly bad. so what. much has changed since the beginning of crucible and "winmatar" has lost a lot of ground. which is good so one can fly again minmatar without getting ones accomplishments dismissed as minmatar op-ness. the earlier people start to rid themself of this winmatar-expectation and - perception the better. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
397
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 14:19:00 -
[177] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Up to here almost nobody is happy with these changes. I guess I would say that Coercer is already an awesome destroyer that simply doesn't have a point. With a point, it will be easily on par or better than the Thrasher over a wide range of situations.
The Cormorant will be the superior sniper ship, but nothing else. It used to be a great sniper and a good close range ship but removing the midslot hurt its abilty to control range.
The Catalyst will be the superior high sec ganker, but nothing else.
So, the wide range of destroyer roles will be filled mostly by Coercer/Thrasher, with two niches being filled by the Cormorant and the Catalyst.
|
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:29:00 -
[178] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:A general frig has 10 slots all around
Dessies have around 13..
-6 highslots. 100% damage bonus. +1 slots to either mid or low.
Destroyers now merely have 11 slots vs. a frig's 10.
Did I fix it? |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
329
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 16:08:00 -
[179] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:much has changed since the beginning of crucible and "winmatar" has lost a lot of ground.
I would like to know what you're basing this assertion on. I've been following http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 in the last six months and not much has actually changed in that timeframe.
Hybrids are slightly better represented while lasers are slightly worse represented. HMLs are still on top and projectile weapons make up the bulk as always.
Very few armor tankers as usual also. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 16:14:00 -
[180] - Quote
Keep four mids on the Cormorant (I will post this every time)
Regarding the cat, still seems to lack range, flexibility and fittings.
How about introducing a damage bonus of 5% per level for the Falloff bonus, adjusting the DPS back down by only having 6 turrets (easier to fit), leaving two spare highs.
Swap one to a mid and leave one as a utility high (low would e nice but is probably overpowered), tweak cpu and prowergrid.
Then swap the role bonus of 50% optimal to 50% Falloff.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |