Nice find with the setup. Thrasher controls range and has larger tank. But otherwise it looks feasible. Will try this setup next, but not hoping for best..

Edit: Compare these numbers to your Coercer with Scorch. Not close. Win for Coercer at all ranges. So now Catalyst must switch to antimatter or void and ram him. But then Coercer switches to Conflaguration. Win for Coercer.

Coercer is better at being a close range ship than Catalyst. In every single Scenario. And out to 17km. Medium Pulse Laser Coercer will be devastating.

I have to say, I really dislike the slot argument presented here. High slots do not directly equate to med/low slots, or even high-slots in a larger hull size, so totalling them towards some sort of arbitrary ceiling for each class is just frustrating. It's the combination of different numbers of highs and meds/lows that should define/seperate ship classes. Try thinking of it this way instead; post changes, all T1 frigates will all have around 6-7 meds/lows. Destroyers currently have 5 meds/lows, while present-day cruisers and AFs have 7 or more meds/lows.

By your own admission updated T1 cruisers will have 14ish slots which, if 5-6 are highs, the remaining 8-9 are meds/lows. It seems then that cruisers and battlecruisers will be getting similar slot layouts except for high-slots (which is a good thing), so why not port this logic down to destroyers and make them at least as good the frigates they're designed to counter.

Bumping this combined figure of meds/lows up to 6 for destroyers gives the Coercer its much needed second med-slot, and a second low-slot for the Cormorant. The Thrasher gets a third low-slot and the Catalyst gets a third med-slot. Yes, this will make them somewhat more powerful than they are now, but the pending cruiser buff (sorry, "rebalancing") will necessitate this later anyway, no?

I don't want to be harsh, but it really sounds like "sup dawg, I (may) have read the 11 pages, and I think my first idea was the best, I won't change anything, see you later on TQ o/".

Removing the fourth mid on the cormorant for a low is a huuuuuuuuuuge nerf to an already suck-y destroyer.

Its slot layout is honestly fine. In general, its a fine ship

We are mostly fine with the changes so far - we may change the slot layout back on the Cormorant if 4 meds are preferred, but there is no large incoming buff to be expected on the destroyer class itself as we feel they are faring quite well since the last set of buffs during Crucible.

so yeah, the coercer goes from being exceptional at everything to sucking at everything. itll be outranged by any of the other destroyers and it itll be outtanked by all of them except the newer cormorant which was the 2nd best destroyer in the game, 1st being coercer. the new cormorant went from being amazing, to complete ****.

GG

so yeah, the coercer goes from being exceptional at everything to sucking at everything. itll be outranged by any of the other destroyers and it itll be outtanked by all of them except the newer cormorant which was the 2nd best destroyer in the game, 1st being coercer. the new cormorant went from being amazing, to complete ****.

GG

Wtf are you talking about? The Coercer has excellent range and damage projection, scorch coercer is asskicking awesome. Its going to be better now that it actually has fitting to put on medium pulses and an mwd. The only weakness it had was the single midslot, forcing you to decide between tackle and propulsion.

The Coercer is getting more grid and a second mid at the cost of a low. The largest tier weapons are also going to be easier to fit which is a stealth buff to Amarr small ships in general.

With the future changes I think I'll change out a heat sink for a sensor booster. My rigs will become an ancillary current router, energy burst, and energy locus coordinator. I might also swap out the Pulses for Beams on occasion. In short, I'll lose half a heat sink but gain some range and versatility.

I don't understand people who think the Coercer is getting nerfed.

**** pulses, i wana put beams on my Coercer

I dislike the lack of love the long range pew gets >=[


Other then that the Corm should keep his 4 mids, but really CCP should try to make long range weapons viable on more ships..

One thing that really bothers me about destroyers is the limited amount of slots available makes it rather difficult to boost scan resolution enough to lock and shoot frigates before they burn away or warp out...
Even when frigates are dropping out of warp directly on top of you the destroyers lock so slow most frigates get away before you can start applying damage to them :o

Pinky, meet Cockbag Thrasher, Cockbag Thrasher, Pinky. The ability of the Cockbag Trasher to instapop frigs should be more than enough reason to nerf it in other areas. Instead we talk about how with perfect piloting a Catalyst can win against a Thrasher. BTW, will test out the neutron blaster cat with "strafing run" technique.

I'm not an infamous name in Eve. I don't throw up a ridiculous number of kills every month. I'm not a chest pounder. But if you look at my killboard you'll see that I kill AC Thrashers solo quite a bit in a variety of fits. I also prefer the 125mm rail cat to the nuetron cat. In it you can strafe and beat arty thrashers whereas the nuetron cat can't unless you start on top of them.

I'm not an infamous name in Eve. I don't throw up a ridiculous number of kills every month. I'm not a chest pounder. But if you look at my killboard you'll see that I kill AC Thrashers solo quite a bit in a variety of fits. I also prefer the 125mm rail cat to the nuetron cat. In it you can strafe and beat arty thrashers whereas the nuetron cat can't unless you start on top of them.