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) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
868
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello folks,
While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic.
This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far.
As always, constructive comments are welcome.
Suggested changes are mentioned below:
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.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
- Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 650 (+25) / 800 (+18) / 750 (+20)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 565 (+3) / 375 s / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
- Sensor strength: 10 Radar
- Signature radius: 83
CORMORANT:
Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
- Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 168 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (+18) / 650 (+25) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 465 (-35) / 310 s (-23) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
- Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
- Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST:
Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
- Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+23) / 750 (+20) / 800 (+18)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 500 (+31) / 335 s (+22.5) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
- Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
- Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER:
Slot layout untouched. Significantly reduced capacitor to make it consistent with other Minmatar vessels (cap/s stays the same though).
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+20) / 700 (+23) / 650 (+25)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 355 (-102.5) / 225 s (-66.6) / 1.5
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
- Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
- Signature radius: 75
MODULES:
The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
|
|
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Good start - interesting to see how this shakes up the landscape. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER: CORMORANT: - Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST: - Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER: Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
868
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER: CORMORANT: - Signature radius: 86 (-4)
CATALYST: - Signature radius: 90 (+4)
THRASHER: Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before?
Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update.
Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious.
Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that. |
|
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update. Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious. Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that.
/me snickers
Pre-Thanks for fixing it |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
257
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:COERCER: You guys get us the best presents. Can we have it a week before the Reds do? Please? We've been good. |
Toterra
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
283
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Coercer with 2 mids, finally!
Better light missiles and small laser fitting reduction I can also fully get behind.
I'm not sure though if it's going to be enough for beam lasers to become attractive when their extra range over scorch means relatively little at the frigate level due to high ship speeds. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
868
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ok fixed the main post: HP, signature radius and capacitor were incorrect before. That's what I get for using tons of spreadsheets and mixing new ones with older, pre-Crucible data. |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst.
Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. |
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Subtle Thrasher buff?
Coercer - interesting to see how the fitting and weapon changes pan out. It was always a strong ship just could not tackle.
Catalyst - Slight stat buff, now worst powergrid by far.
Corm - Nerf? Its real key advantage over the other ships was its ability to fit prop, scram, web and shield tank. For me it was this combination that meant it could handle faction frigs and the other destroyers when fit well. The only target ships I would avoid in the corm were the Gallente/Caldari assault ships (resist profile) and the Daredevil. Really not sure why you would ever choose this over the Thrasher now, if you have to give it a low then take the rocket high slot. But still I do not think it needs such a drastic change. With this and the plate changes you may start to see 400mm T2 plate corms. Slower but tougher.
Thrasher - Generally receives a buff to the already top destroyer.
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Option 3 : only 7 highs but keep the 4 medslots.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yay! I can use low slot(s) for something other than CPU/Grid modules to wedge in all the guns! |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Coercer is my favorite ship currently and will be pretty fun with the changes.
Any thoughts on changing the Thrashers 50% optimal bonus to a falloff bonus to keep it inline with the projection of other dessies? |
Jarvin Xadi
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
870
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
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. |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
766
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
I see what you did there.... Snuck in the light missile discussion under the destroyer thread...
/me wags finger.
All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I wonder if this will help light missiles be used a bit more. I was somewhat hoping for a second or two off of the launch time. But I'm wondering how this will work out either way.
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?
Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.
I don't know what the correct answer is for this, but I think you may want to examine this situation with Destroyers.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
284
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:13:00 -
[18] - 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?
That's more or less working as intended I believe.
Quote:Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.
I personally think that small blasters did not need a buff, so they are a bit too good now. And the ASB is definitely too good.
It's not a problem with the destroyer hulls, just some modules. Similarly, the Thrasher being so popular has more to do with autocannons ease of fitting and artillery alpha than with the hull itself. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
I really don't buy this cap amount thing. Why don't you give minmatar actual worse cap/sec?
How about giving them all 8 turrets? I do really love salvaging a lot, but I would honestly prefer having 8 turrets on my cormorant.
Still only 2 mids on the catalyst? Then I guess I'll have to continue not flying it.
I'd like to see some consistency with range bonuses (and I guess a massive revamp of t2 ammo and tracking enhancers, but that won't happen ever). |
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup. From Ship Balancing Summer Update "But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based." |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun. In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup. From Ship Balancing Summer Update "But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based." Indeed, and the flycatcher should be a missile-base destroyer (but since it's just a terrible ship, everybody uses the sabre). But remember that the ferox/moa have missile slots too, and are sometimes used as missile ships.
"It's a cormorant ! I will use my armor-tank enyo with kin/therm hardeners !" *get raped by a nova-rocket-cormorant* |
Cameron Zero
Red Federation
84
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets?
Quote: Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.
Yes, I know they're small turrets, but it's still confusing to someone who doesn't understand the naming conventions. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. GǪ" |
BadAssMcKill
Ghost Headquarters The Ghost Army
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
Its a step in the right direction but it doesn't seem like its a big enough change |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Cameron Zero wrote:I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets? A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit ! |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
284
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Cameron Zero wrote:I know this is outside of the discussion on destroyers, but CCP, can you please change the laser names to more accurately reflect that they are SMALL turrets? A CCP dude made a thread about it a few months ago, but I don't remember how it ended. Dig a bit !
Let me guess: lots of whining about dumbing down the game and destroying "immersion"? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.
Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu).
I dont like the corm changes, but the rest look quite good.
For the cormorant, I would suggest giving it a slight speed boost, and maybe a fitting increase, while leaving the slots the same. If you want to get really out there, give it the merlin's old shield boost bonus. |
tofucake prime
The Hatchery Team Liquid
49
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
Excuse me, but did you really just say "Thrasher was left untouched except for the parts we touched"?
wat |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
tofucake prime wrote:Excuse me, but did you really just say "Thrasher was left untouched except for the parts we touched"?
wat
You are an angry man. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
757
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
I really don't feel these changes are sufficient. The Cormorant really needs a change to its highslot layout, especially if you're going to lose a midslot.
That said, your OP doesn't say anything about the changed Turret/Launcher layout for any of them. Could you tell us how you imagine the ships? |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
There's a lot of discussion on rockets on corms.
There's a lot of simplification on destroyers. (attempting to make them all very similar)
I know it's a lot of dev time to introduce new mods.. but instead of a spreadsheet tweak to try and fit the masses demands.. why not introduce a single subsystem slot for the dessies?
Put subsystem A into the corm.. it's now a 7/4/2 rocket destroyer with the proper bonus Put subsystem B to make it into a 8/3/2 hybrid dessie.
etc..
Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) |
|
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:39:00 -
[31] - Quote
Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look?
Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship.
Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.)
Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. |
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
Malice Duivels wrote:Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship. Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.) Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race. |
BarryBonez
Ixion Defence Systems Test Friends Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Destroyers are the perfect class for me. T1 frigs are pretty weak, and cruisers are a bit too expensive for a throwaway ship. I like to be able to fit a decent ship for ~10mil and undock it not really caring if i lose it or not and destroyers are right in that price range with good dps. The more the better.
Also, can you figure out a way to make T2 EWAR Frigs cheaper, I would love to use some of those but they are simply too expensive, especially compared to their cruiser counterparts which are far more efficient and cheaper. Blackbird>>>>>Kitsune and I don't think it should be so lopsided. I know they need serious rebalancing, but simply making them easier to produce or whatever it takes to make them cheaper would allow them to see more use in the field rather soon until they can be focused on at a later date. Right now they are on life support. I honestly can't remember seeing one of them in space in over a year. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
830
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
small medium or medium medium or both?
and when do you give them a distinct name to prevent this confusion? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
924
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing. |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot.
Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher |
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries Li3 Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing. This was the Dev post by CCP Gnauton that set out to address changes to laser names...
What happened to that?
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
92
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Reppyk wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot. Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher
The 8/3/2 layout is by far the best. You can armor tank or shield tank, bring ewar or do whatever you want, and in Minmatars case, fit the biggest guns.
And don't even get me started on the Eris, lol |
|
Sekundary
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I was really confused about how you were getting explosion velocity of 50 for LM's, until I realized you were talking about explosion radius. Please don't accidentally change the explosion velocity of LM's to 40. |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship. Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.) Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race.
I agree with you and think either of our solutions are valid.. but it comes down to resources and what CCP has available. My proposal was heavy on the spreadsheet side and easy on the creation side.
I don't know what kinda resources CCP has available.. perhaps one of our suggestions can propagate a discussion within CCP to provide a widely accepted solution!
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ok what the Coercer needed was more mids..
It did not need more DPS/Range.. It was already really powerful, just couldn't hold anything down... |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:37:00 -
[44] - Quote
For me destroyers are all about gank. How much firepower can you put onto each dessie frame to kill frigates as fast as possible? Through trial and error I have stopped putting points on the things - you can't really control range with frigates. They will either come into your envelope or they won't.
Thrasher: High: 280mm II x 7 Mid: Limited MWD Sensor Booster II Tracking Computer II Low: Gyro II x 2 Rigs: Ancillary Current Router x 2 Projectile Collision Rig
1854 Alpha - This kills frigates all the time before they can get out.
125mm Catalyst: - imho the only Catalyst worth fitting High: 125mm II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router Hybrid Burst Hybrid Locus Coordinator
You need the genolution set to fit this - it would be nice if it wasn't needed to fit the middle tier rail guns and no tank. However the above fit does 381 DPS with faction Antimatter. If you throw in damage implants it easily breaks 418 DPS at 13km. To put it another way it sends 609 alpha downrange every 1.53 seconds. And it puts 4 volleys downrange before the Thrasher gets off it's second. Again, by the time a target realizes it needs to get out, it's usually dead.
Corm - it currently is a support ship. It's DPS is too weak to do what the Cat and Thrasher do - kill stuff fast. It is usually consigned to sit back and snipe in support of other ships at 70 - 100km. I have fought the dual MSE, 75mm rail corm in the cat fit posted above and wasn't impressed by it at all. It has 7 turrets while the Thrasher, with it's damage bonus, technically has 8.75. I use those four mids for a prop mod, two tracking computers and a sensor booster. Along with an ionic field projector rig I can lock out to 90km and shoot out the same. That range would have to come in alot with the slot change but I'd be able to send more DPS out as well. All in all, still consigned to be a support sniper.
Coercer - I have little experience with this ship. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?
For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
286
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
Zarnak, this is how you would fit a Coercer for what you're doing:
Quote:[Coercer, Full Gank] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Co-Processor II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
378 dps overheat, 728 volley, 19k optimal.
I do find that the lack of warp disruptor limits the usefulness of the ship. While it kills fast, it doesn't kill fast enough to stop frigates that appear on the gate and try to warp off. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:31:00 -
[48] - Quote
The Catalyst needs more powergrid, especially since its mounting one more gun than the cormorant.
The coercer is a much better ship now. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much.
I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets,
That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
224
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:04:00 -
[50] - Quote
Does [Winter] in the title mean we'll have to wait until December expansion to see these changes? |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:06:00 -
[51] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much. I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets, That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids.
The Cormorant should have 7 turrets, 4 mids, 2 lows. Trade out the tracking bonus for a damage bonus. (optimal x 2, damage) Now THAT would be a Caldari destroyer. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1788
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
I'm not a huge fan of the destroyer changes: - I really liked the old 2 HS/2 TE Coercer... but I'm probably the only one who did. I can see why you're making the change, even if I'm not a big fan. - Dropping the 4th mid slot on the Cormorant feels like a nerf. - Why does the Cormorant have so much higher grid than the Catalyst?
Really, I think the biggest problem with destroyer usage right now is the cost of the hull vs the cost of T2 weapons. It's literally cheaper to buy a better frigate like the Retribution or Slicer than fit T2 weapons to a destroyer. Have you considered the old 100% bonus and 3-4 weapon slots?
Quote:MODULES: The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges. The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
288
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:34:00 -
[53] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges.
-Liang
That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?
I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1789
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?
I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds.
You're probably looking at Multifreq optimals where they just don't track. Try moving out to longer ranged ammos and you'll see what I mean. Still, tracking is a problem but it doesn't matter much because you can't lock that far out anyway.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 22:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
+1 for rename |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 23:20:00 -
[56] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang
It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a double-damage boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1792
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 23:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a damage-appliance boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40.
That makes a lot more sense, TBH. Ytterbium?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 02:26:00 -
[58] - Quote
Definitely rename any light (small) modules that have 'medium' in their name, they're confusing.
Loving the change for light missiles, they sorely need that buff. And consider making all the long-range missiles and guns more like artillery, in that they are about volley damage (cruise missiles would really benefit from this, but I disgress).
The Corm desperately needs an 8th turret slot, please consider adding this since it doesn't get a damage bonus. You can make a dedicated missile destroyer later
I'm not entirely sold on the concept of destroyers still being anti-frigate hulls. Does that mean we will get anti-destroyer cruisers? And anti-cruiser battlecruisers etc? Stick to your ship lines model - what category are destroyers really in? With poor mobility and poor defence, they don't really fit into the combat OR attack lines, and they're not support. They're in a class of their own at the moment.
That destroyer gun-range bonus; are the tier 2 destroyers going to get that too, even if they're missile or drone based? It just doesn't fit.
Consider removing that and folding the range bonus into the regular attributes for the class to normalise them with the upcoming tier 2's. Hell, if you're still planning to release Line Skills (attack, combat etc) attach that range bonus to the attack ship line skill.
The tier 1's are gunboats, meant for damage, and therefore should be in the attack line and should probably have more speed to fit with the category. Or more resilience to fit them into the combat line. Take your pick, but don't leave them swinging in the wind as they are now. Even the tier 3 BC's would be considered attack line ships as they have speed AND damage output. Food for thought. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 03:25:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dear CCP Yitterbium, CCP Fozzie, and CCP Tallest,
So I've heard a lot about the reasons why historically, as in near the beta, lasers were so good none of the laser ships had damage bonuses and had cap use bonuses instead from players.
However when you bring up the stats today, they are in terms of tracking, range and damage seem to be in line roughly with other weapons minus the fact they use so much more cap. Which makes many Amarr ship fits quite more cap unstable especially in long fights when compared to other races. Much more so than Caldari missile boats or any Minmatar in terms of ability to project damage. I think all these points are facts that most people who played recently would agree upon.
I had asked in the attack frigate thread, though rather late in the thread.
Quote:What are the broad design goals, choices for each of the races combat ships, what are they supposed to be good at?
To me it seems, that Amarr is supposed to be good at lasers, passive armor tanking, and capacitor.
With secondary weapons being drones and missiles, though it looks like your giving most races drones or missile ships eventually.
Minmatar, projectiles, missiles, speed, and active shield tanking. Though by far the most versatile race.
Gallente, Blasters, drones, active armor tanking, agility(?).
Caldari, Railguns, Missiles, passive shield tanking, um 4th thing(?)
These of course don't list the EWAR of each race which is much more obvious.
So I was wondering what the devs think about the general balance of laser cap use, compared to there abilities, and how this factors in recent balance changes where some ships have had their inherent cap changed to make room for a real second bonus on Amarr ships but not all.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you are bringing Tech 1 back into a useable state. And I appreciate many of the changes. I just want some love for my Amarr ships in long fights. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 03:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
So instead of Medium Beam and Pulse. How about Small Overcharged Beam/Pulse? |
|
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 04:37:00 -
[61] - Quote
I guess the change to the slot layout of the Coercer was bound to happen sooner or later. Too many people complained about it.
I am a bit sad about the changes, to be honest. I liked to fly the Coercer and actually successfully soloed in it.
[Coercer, Flare of Enlightment - High DPS] Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Small Energy Locus Coordinator I Small Energy Locus Coordinator I Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
That fit is a great combination of DPS, Range and Tank (yes, the DCU II does make a difference, even on a Destroyer without any other tanking mods).
I managed to slaughter many Frigates (including Pirate Faction Frigates), Destroyers and even a few Interdictors with it. I was able to do so because people often underestimated the abilities of the ship.
They would attack me and then die long before they realized they have to warp. Kiting Frigates were especially prone to that, because their tank is often very weak.
The thing is: For killing kiters, a point really just isn't needed. If they don't attack you and get into your range then you can't catch them anyway. If they do attack you and get into weapon range, their best bet for survival is actually burning away with the MWD, not warping away. If they try to make a quick emergeny warp, they often just end up staying in weapon range for too long and die before they actually warp, because the MWD ruins their ability to warp quickly.
Brawlers can be killed by attacking with Scorch first to weaken their tank and then getting caught by them intentionally. They will think they have easy game with you once they are in close range, but that is not true. You just switch to either Conflagration or IN Multifrequency (Conflag usually has enough tracking in my experience). You will do high damage at close range and the DCU II will keep you alive long enough to kill your target (many of my fights ended in hull for me; it actually makes up a large part of my EHP on that fit). That is how i killed a Sabre with the Coercer without ever pointing it.
In smaller gangs, the Coercer is better than any Destroyer at doing what it is supposed to do: Protecting larger ship from Frigates. It doesn't have the tank to live long if it gets called primary in bigger fights, but that is a thing for all Destroyers and working as intended i guess.
In a way, the recent Destroyer buff has made my solo tactics harder to execute, because people have learned to fear the damage output of the buffed Coercer.
I admit that the missing med slot is a disadvantage and not a small one at that. But the Coercer isn't broken. I also admit that a lot joy in flying the Coercer and killing stuff with it solo comes from the "WTF, a solo Coercer killed me!?" - effect :)
The Coercer won't be bad if the changes mean it can fit a full rack of (small) Medium Pulses, an MWD and point. It should have about the same DPS, range and tank as my old fit despite losing a low slot then. But i would still miss the old Coercer.
On the Corm, i can only say that it should keep the fourth mid. Just give it a 8th turret slot and a lot more PG.
- Azula |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
161
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 06:28:00 -
[62] - 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.
Now there's a set of name changes that would be truly worthwhile. Discussing lasers with players who don't use them is a royal pita the way it is now. Please, don't stop with just the frigate sized ones, either. . |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
288
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 06:32:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:So instead of Medium Beam and Pulse. How about Small Overcharged Beam/Pulse?
How about
Small 20 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 100 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 500 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Or something like that. I'm not sure what power would be appropriate for their size and destructive power. A Megawatt is a quite a bit of power. Most nuclear power plants output between 500 and 1000 Megawatt. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 06:35:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CORMORANT: Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.
- Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 168 CPU (-15)
But Cormorant have 215 CPU now in TQ?
168+15 =/= 215 |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
72
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 09:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
I think the changes to the Cormorant need some adjusting. Keep the 4 mid slots and drop the utility high for an extra low slot. The Corm is a shield boat but with only 3 mids there's no room to fit a tank, web, scram and prop.
If the destroyer is supposed to be anti-frigate it needs to be able to catch and hold the smaller ships before bringing it's superior firepower on target. Unless of course you mean for the corm to be fit with an armor plate as tank, in which case I wonder why it's in the Caldari line up. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
877
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 10:16:00 -
[66] - Quote
Fixed typos with missile explosion radius and wrong CPU numbers on the Cormorant. |
|
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:32:00 -
[67] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:How about
Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser
Or something like that. I'm not sure what power would be appropriate for their size and destructive power. A megawatt is a quite a bit of power. Most nuclear power plants output between 500 and 1000 Megawatt.
Megawatts are so Earth 20th Century. Even a Civilian Gatling Laser pumps out energy in the Gigawatt-ranges.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Fixed typos with missile explosion radius and wrong CPU numbers on the Cormorant.
(o.-)b |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:32:00 -
[68] - Quote
I know that Interdictors are not 'technically' Destroyers (and quite potentially you'll get to those down the track) but as they share the same hull could you at least bring the signature radius into line with whatever you do with the TI variant (in the meantime)? It would take mere minutes I'm sure (4 hulls).
I don't want to hear that Interdictors are nothing other than suicide bubble dispensers from the community BTW. Because they suck currently, though fulfill that role, doesn't mean that's how it should stay. So please desist. One of the biggest disappointments with the last destroyer tweaks was the complete indifference to the related Interdictor.
Ytterbium?
Pretty please. |
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch Caldari State Capturing
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:09:00 -
[69] - Quote
Just slap a new slot to every destroyer and be done with it. I mean, if recent t1 attack frigate changes are any indication "anti frigate platform" is not something destroyers will do very well. I mean, condor should be able to kill most of them these days. |
Intaki Kauyon
Quantum Cats Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:26:00 -
[70] - Quote
I agreew with Yuri.
Condor can basically take any of these destroyers. Are we going form anti-frig platform to just higher DPS than a combat frig?
I think the problem with the Catalyst is still ... anything you think you can do with the Catalyst, the Thrasher does better. Sure on EFT a blaster Cat is high DPS. But in what normal fight can a destoryer approach the target and close within 1KM and not move?The answer is few.
The catalyst orbits and it basically cuts its DPS in half. Not to mention closing the gap takes forever for most fights the destoryer should be in. And for a ship that needs to close the gap, it doesn't have the mids to be tackle.
It's just not a perferred ship. If you have have Small Projectiles to V, there is still no reason with these changes to be in a Catalyst is the bottom line. Thrasher is still the better of the Dessies. Corm at least holds the snipe role.
The Catalyst needs more PG and a 3rd Mid slot.
|
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:44:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ok, once again I wade in for the glory of the caldari race!
cormorants... first off, am I completely against the new cormorant slot layout? honestly no. the Advantages of the 8/3/2 layout are pretty damn apparent when you look at the thrasher which has been, and in terms of general usage still is, the best of the destroyer line combining tank, firepower, range and speed into a single powerful and respected death dealer which often means the end of all T1 frigates it can catch in both its autocannon and its artillery variations, producing a very effective and much loved ship for us rvb types.
making a cormorant simmilar to this would only be an advantage from a purely game play oriented point of view allowing me to in some ways produce a platform easily the equal of the mighty thrasher with a MWD, MSE scrambler in the mids and a damage control/magstab affair in the lows with my turrets turned over to glorious double range bonused blasters.
the new changes aren't BAD.
but they don't feel caldari.
this is my big quibble, at the current moment, for all its faults and foibles the cormorant is a very caldari ship. It fits in with the combat principles of the caldari race wonderfully with wondrous range bonuses, the tracking to make railguns effective and the mids to make its self a fearsome support platform in smaller gang engagements or the ultimate fleet harrasser with its 100km railguns of death defending fleets from rogue interceptors, EAF frigs and other sniper platforms. its filling a fantastic niche in the caldari ship line, an underused one perhaps, but in the hands of someone who knows exactly what they want to do with the hull? unsurpassed.
My concern is that while the new layout is by all means good, DAMN good, it'll lose some of that magic which makes the cormorant so unique. as an avid cormorant enthusiast I have to side with the other individuals in this thread and get on my knees and beg that the cormorant can retain its glorious 4th mid, even at the expense of a 2nd low, which in my mind is not critical to solving that faults the cormorant has at the current moment.
what faults the ship does have are... well... being adressed with your other changes. the biggest issue with the cormorant In my mind has always been the weak power grid which severely limmits its ability to fit both a shield tank and hybrid weapons, forcing the player to either compromise with smaller guns or sacrifice the single lowslot for an MAPC often to the annoyance of the pilot as you'll STILL have the better part of a 3rd of your cpu just sitting there not being used unless you fit out the rest of your mids with spads of Ewar. the proposed powergrid boost and CPU reduction solves this problem magnificently giving the caldari pilot the ability to fit both an MSE and a damage control without being shackled with electron blasters unless they give up rigging. the move of putting a mid into a low of course also helps with this problem but its more overkill relative to the issue at hand and kind of robs the cormorant of its.... cormorantness.
As mentioned previously an easy solution to keeping everyone happy would be to remove the utility highslot, which we often don't have the power grid to use, and move it down to the low saving the mid. while this would solve the problem I think its again a bit overkill to solve the cormorants flaws and ccp would be much better served by maintaining the slot layout and instead giving the cormorant an extra turret in addition to the PG/CPU rebalance.
It maintains the cormorants current slot layout while providing a slight dps buff to the hull. snipers would recieve a little extra dps from the extra turret but the constraints of fitting would go a fair way to preventing this becoming too powerful (and still balancing the cormorant by not permitting it to have a prop mod if it wants the 100km fit of death layout) Its dps would at best still be only comparable to the autocannon thrasher on a good day but still remaining unique enough to be distinct from its minmatar sister ship. (due to the lack of a damage bonus in favour of tracking and optimal, which is awesome by the by, please keep ^_^)
ytterbium? fozzie? please don't take my wondercorm away from me? please don't just make it a thrasher with blasters?
let caldari pilots know the glory of the 4 mids, let them learn that its not always purely about having more firepower or tank than everyone else, that sometimes its the Ewar that matters, let the cormorant remain the only shield destroyer with a utility midslot for a web, tracking disruptor or sensorbooster. let the pilot discover the joy of beating a thrasher thanks to fighting like a caldari pilot, with range mobility and Ewar being the tipping points of battle. please let it remain the scourge of slicers everywhere and the gurilla destroyer of choice for the embattled rvb pilot who has no friends to support him as the other side camp the gates in his system, his only friends being a folder of bookmarks a few hundred rounds of spike S.
please keep it a cormorant
(for additional motivation please refer to link)
http://c0117602.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/b93e925b-9983-4ca5-b399-fe3effc0c9e0.jpg Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
54
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 15:56:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
All light missile variations: explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10% [/list]
IIRC in old rebalancing thread there was strong consensus that light missiles need increased rate of fire, so it would probably be more useful if you would increase rate of fire for all light missile launchers instead of incising damage and decreasing explosion radius. |
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:10:00 -
[73] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Option 1 : 8 turret slots. Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.
Sounds like fun to me.
confirthisposmed
Yes. I'm a writer. And I'm a writer. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
196
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:45:00 -
[74] - Quote
Intaki Kauyon wrote: The catalyst orbits and it basically cuts its DPS in half. Not to mention closing the gap takes forever for most fights the destoryer should be in. And for a ship that needs to close the gap, it doesn't have the mids to be tackle.
Maybe if you are orbiting a warrior ii with your mwd on. Blasters have excellent tracking now, remember?
Also, the rail catalyst can be flow much like an artywolf.
Imo - give the cormorant the old merlin shield boost bonus - give the catalyst a 2nd drone, maybe even a drone hp bonus as a role bonus - the thrasher is fine - the coercer should get a 2nd mid slot, with extra room to fit it
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:27:00 -
[75] - Quote
By the way, in the discussion about the Cormorant, it's important to keep in mind that Caldari will get a missile based destroyer which will be able to fit rockets and melt hulls in the 15 km range (assuming the usual 50% range bonus). An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
242
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:27:00 -
[76] - Quote
Why is it that they must come hell or high water be the same across the board? Is it to make potential future balancing easier or something?
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.
Remove the capacitor usage bonus, replace with 7.5%/lvl damage bonus and a slight bump in base capacitor ..
Why you ask?: Prior to tiericide started, the Coercer was more than capable of winning solo fights, tackle be damned. The fact that 99% of all people think that "He has no tackle = I can leave if it goes awry" combined with a well timed heated gun rack burned through just about anything fielded against it (in its weightclass, incl. 400mn plate auto-Trash). Tiericide is increasing speed and EHP across all target hulls, hence the bump to damage with nothing further really needed as it should remain the connoisseur's choice .. let the peasants fly Trash.
In short: True Amarrians (and we Khanids) don't need no stinking tackle just a metric ton of dps!
PS: Yes, I know this will get flamed to hell and back because the majority are unable to perform with aid in the form of bondage tackle, so sue me .. the Empress got my back! |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
496
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:29:00 -
[77] - Quote
I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:53:00 -
[78] - Quote
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.
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1794
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.
There' s something to be said for that utility high, but this is an alright solution. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:24:00 -
[80] - Quote
the changes look great, except the loss of the 4th low for the coercer , im gonna miss it.
but if it means that it gets that second midslot , HURAY!
also @zarnak wulf :the dessies need that tracking bonus , dont neglect that! IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
496
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:33:00 -
[81] - Quote
I would argue that the Corm does not need a tracking bonus. With four mids and two lows it can get away without one. It is ideal at range but with TC, webs, or TE it should work. Plus I would point out that a tracking bonus is not very Caldari.
As for the Coercer - optimal, tracking, damage? Others will be more familiar with its cap then me. |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:39:00 -
[82] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.
See... I'm not as much a fan of this idea personally. while it certainly "solves" the issues with the various destroyers it pretty much leaves them with no weaknesses either and while I believe they most certainly require some help (which i think generally speaking the first post covers nicely all bar the cormorant, which i think needs the 8/4/1 layout for both thematic and style reasons).
my main gripe with this solution however is that it kind of replicates the problems of the first post as well by standardizing all the destroyers; they'll all have 7 turrets, they'll all have a damage bonus, an optimal bonus, and an X bonus. I feel its particularly important that we maintain the flavour of the various destroyers which even in the non optimal situation we currently have (though personally I've got a sucess rate against thrashers in my cormorants which will make people spit take ^_^.
continuing as the cormorant as the example here, does it NEED a damage bonus? I don't personally think so. an extra turret would provide enough dps to shore it up relative to the "big leagues" with the other destroyers without stepping on the toes of the damage intensive catalyst. what the 2nd optimal bonus gives the cormorant however is something pretty damn awesome, 8km optimal blasters, thats 230 dps ALL the way to the edge of scram range and that's most certainly not to be sniffed at when the cormorant can fit a web unlike its counterparts. its not easy to do by any means but it makes the cormorant, at least for me, significantly more interesting to fly, to the point that I now almost fly it exclusively.
the same logic can be applied to the catalyst, does the catalyst feel like any of the other destroyers? most certainly not it serves as the "big bruiser" of the destroyer line and gets primaried often for that reason but it will most certainly never have any issues with making its presence felt in an engagement once it gets on top of something like any gallente hull, could it use some love? yes is making it lose a turret in order to fit full tackle in the mids the solution? I don't think so personally.
I'm rambling here (durr... late night posting) but basically what I'm saying is we should aim to do as much as we can to make the destroyers distinct without just giving us 4 thrashers with slightly different weapon systems, focus on incomparable features to strike a balance between the four. the thrashers advantage is its adaptability, the cormorant's is its range and Ewar potential, the Catalysts is its damage potential and field presence and the coercer's is its damage projection and accuracy. its on these points we should try and establish a working balance between the 4 hulls (and in turn the new four hulls we'll be seeing) rather than just making everyone a viable option by making everyone the same as the best option.
gurh... need some sleep ^_^
TLDR: we don't need 4 thrashers, we need a cormorant, a coercer, a catalyst and a thrasher :)
Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:43:00 -
[83] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.
See... I'm not as much a fan of this idea personally. while it certainly "solves" the issues with the various destroyers it pretty much leaves them with no weaknesses either and while I believe they most certainly require some help (which i think generally speaking the first post covers nicely all bar the cormorant, which i think needs the 8/4/1 layout for both thematic and style reasons).
my main gripe with this solution however is that it kind of replicates the problems of the first post as well by standardizing all the destroyers; they'll all have 7 turrets, they'll all have a damage bonus, an optimal bonus, and an X bonus. I feel its particularly important that we maintain the flavour of the various destroyers which even in the non optimal situation we currently have (though personally I've got a sucess rate against thrashers in my cormorants which will make people spit take ^_^.
continuing as the cormorant as the example here, does it NEED a damage bonus? I don't personally think so. an extra turret would provide enough dps to shore it up relative to the "big leagues" with the other destroyers without stepping on the toes of the damage intensive catalyst. what the 2nd optimal bonus gives the cormorant however is something pretty damn awesome, 8km optimal blasters, thats 230 dps ALL the way to the edge of scram range and that's most certainly not to be sniffed at when the cormorant can fit a web unlike its counterparts. its not easy to do by any means but it makes the cormorant, at least for me, significantly more interesting to fly, to the point that I now almost fly it exclusively.
the same logic can be applied to the catalyst, does the catalyst feel like any of the other destroyers? most certainly not it serves as the "big bruiser" of the destroyer line and gets primaried often for that reason but it will most certainly never have any issues with making its presence felt in an engagement once it gets on top of something like any gallente hull, could it use some love? yes is making it lose a turret in order to fit full tackle in the mids the solution? I don't think so personally.
I'm rambling here (durr... late night posting) but basically what I'm saying is we should aim to do as much as we can to make the destroyers distinct without just giving us 4 thrashers with slightly different weapon systems, focus on incomparable features to strike a balance between the four. the thrashers advantage is its adaptability, the cormorant's is its range and Ewar potential, the Catalysts is its damage potential and field presence and the coercer's is its damage projection and accuracy. its on these points we should try and establish a working balance between the 4 hulls (and in turn the new four hulls we'll be seeing) rather than just making everyone a viable option by making everyone the same as the best option.
gurh... need some sleep ^_^
TLDR: we don't need 4 thrashers, we need a cormorant, a coercer, a catalyst and a thrasher :)
Quote:I would argue that the Corm does not need a tracking bonus. With four mids and two lows it can get away without one. It is ideal at range but with TC, webs, or TE it should work. Plus I would point out that a tracking bonus is not very Caldari.
gah, missed this one while typing. I'd rather keep the tracking bonus honestly, it makes cormorants with railguns fairly effective and allows you to hit interceptors with Spike, which suits the "sniper" cormorants role as a fleet harrasser and fleet defence platform very nicely. as for the four mids two lows arguement, i'd have to disagree as those slots are already in high demand on almost all fits and would be requiring us to just fit tracking enhancers and tracking computers rather than magstabs, which doesn't solve the problems the cormorant has which in my mind, more than anything else, is the massive disparity between its CPU and its power grid. let the cormorant fit ion blasters, an MSE and a microwarp drive without fitting modules and the world will be a much happier place. hell let me do it with an afterburner and We'll be good. 280 dps corm with a half decent shield tank? easy match for the thrasher while still being a cormorant :) Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
188
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 00:34:00 -
[84] - Quote
Coercer change - great, this is needed.
Thrasher - good as is
Catalyst - will remain subpar since it's got the worst damage projection, and only 2 mids.
Cormorant - This is the dominant sniping platform and will remain so with these changes (tracking computer with script gives the same optimal as a TE). However, you are nerfing its brawling ability - it used to be the shield tanking destroyer with scram, web, prop mod and extender. You could get a variety of fits like the 75mm/ab corm that would dominate a lot of destroyers and frigs if flown correctly.
The removal of one mid to another low really is a nerf, and this is why:
The cormorant has a range bonus, and the extra mids helped it to take full advantage of that bonus. By removing the mid, you have effectively nerfed the cormorant in its brawling role (combat within web/scram range). |
Khaim Khal
Valkyries of Night
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 01:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Could you please give all 4 ships the full 8 turret slots? I know some races like missiles, but there are plenty of other classes for that. Likewise, the Catalyst's drone is a nice touch, but can easily be cut in favor of more in-role improvements.
The Thrasher's 56 sig seems unusually low next to 62 / 65 / 68. |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch Caldari State Capturing
190
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 04:29:00 -
[86] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid.
Trasher 7 high/ 7 turrets 3 mid 3 low
then we have balance !
anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
82
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 05:08:00 -
[87] - Quote
The fourth mid of the Cormorant is going... Why?
It was capable of getting some decent defense, which I think is it's main selling point because it's not nearly as offense oriented as the other three destroyers, it seems. Making it so that it can neither match them offensively, NOR have any semblance of a tank, makes no sense. Fragile snipers don't have much of a place in this game, it seems.
I'm aware that you can put a mag stab or something in the lows, but really, without damage bonii it's still falling behind.
So how does this benefit the Cormorant, at all? |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
497
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 05:35:00 -
[88] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote: my main gripe with this solution however is that it kind of replicates the problems of the first post as well by standardizing all the destroyers; they'll all have 7 turrets, they'll all have a damage bonus, an optimal bonus, and an X bonus. I feel its particularly important that we maintain the flavour of the various destroyers which even in the non optimal situation we currently have (though personally I've got a sucess rate against thrashers in my cormorants which will make people spit take ^_^.
I understand what you're saying. Right now though, all the destroyers have an optimal bonus, a tracking bonus and an X bonus. They weren't very original to begin with.
Connall Tara wrote: the same logic can be applied to the catalyst, does the catalyst feel like any of the other destroyers? most certainly not it serves as the "big bruiser" of the destroyer line and gets primaried often for that reason but it will most certainly never have any issues with making its presence felt in an engagement once it gets on top of something like any gallente hull, could it use some love? yes is making it lose a turret in order to fit full tackle in the mids the solution? I don't think so personally.
The catalyst is annoying in many different ways. It's power grid is horribly tight. It has three precious lows to try to fit MFS, TE, and a tank. It's DPS, it's most endearing feature, takes a nose dive if you try to fit even the most light of tanks on it. It has an optimal AND a falloff bonus. It is trying to compete with the Thrasher, which very easily as an AC platform puts out 450ish DPS with a 7.5k EHP buffer tank. The catalyst simply can't match that. I've given up on it as a blaster platform and only use it with rails. It honestly thrives in that kind of role. So damage, optimal, and tracking - three things a rail platform needs.
Bad Messenger wrote: Trasher 7 high/ 7 turrets 3 mid 3 low
then we have balance !
anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit.
You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.
Destroyers - cruiser level DPS, frigate level tank, higher sig radius to make them vulnerable. An extra slot could be over the top. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 06:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
I don't like the idea of adding slots to destroyers as some have been suggesting. They're supposed to be very focused ships. Extra slots dilute the focus and make them more versatile. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 06:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
It seems to me that this change will accomplish little in terms of rebalancing the destroyers. The Thrasher remains the go-to destroyer for most roles, the catalyst remains a throw away suicide boat with high dps. The only change you've really brought about is to remove the tanking abilities of the cormorant and the coercer and in return the coercer gains a much needed mid for tackle.
Given the excellent job to date on frigates I don't see how you can stall so quickly with destroyers.
Oh, and why does the Catalyst (a boat that uses cap hungry weaponry) get the poorest cap/s recharge rate? Surely that should be the Thrasher which needs cap much less?
To rebalance destroyers I think you need to add a single slot to each of the existing formats and use that to plug the deficiencies in their relative performances along with bonus changes and how many turrets each has. Utility slots on destroyers are less serviceable than on other ship types.
Please also remember that the only truly useful tank for most of these ships now is either buffer or ASB, and the ASB is head an shoulders above buffer with the slot layout of these boats. This makes a mid slot pure gold for a destroyer, please don't underestimate just how much of a game breaker this module makes to these ships. Without a low slot equivalent ( which I personally don't favour) then for such a low number of mids/lows combined the value of a low slot is far below that of a mid. |
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 09:50:00 -
[91] - Quote
Quote:The catalyst is annoying in many different ways. It's power grid is horribly tight. It has three precious lows to try to fit MFS, TE, and a tank. It's DPS, it's most endearing feature, takes a nose dive if you try to fit even the most light of tanks on it. It has an optimal AND a falloff bonus. It is trying to compete with the Thrasher, which very easily as an AC platform puts out 450ish DPS with a 7.5k EHP buffer tank. The catalyst simply can't match that. I've given up on it as a blaster platform and only use it with rails. It honestly thrives in that kind of role. So damage, optimal, and tracking - three things a rail platform needs.
true enough, but It seems to me that the problems here are much the same ones that the cormorant suffers, poor fitting. much like the cormorant the catalyst is simply unable to match up to the phenominal fitting prowess of the thrasher which can not only fit 200mm autocannons but a micro warp drive, a medium shield extender AND still have CPU and grid spare to add a small neut, 2 low slot damage modules and a scrambler before even looking at rigging. in comparision the cormorant can't even fit ion blasters to a comparative afterburner layout such is its massive CPU to powergrid imbalance. lemmie just show a screenshot in here to explain what I mean.
http://i.imgur.com/qbS8l.jpg
as you can see I'm not trying to fit anything outlandish here, its a fairly tanky layout, compariable to the average AC thrasher with a MSE, shield rigs and a damage control it gets around 500 extra EHP but to be fair, its caldari and has around 20% less speed and 50 less paper dps (which can only be applied at ranges the thrasher has no damage loss at either). unlike the similar thrasher I'm completely out of PG the moment i slap on some weapons, the only way I can compensate is to either trade my lowslot damage control for an MAPC (weakening tank, and still resulting in less dps than the thrasher) or chance down to electron blasters (80-100 less dps with CNAM vs AC's with RF phased plasma). now as I've said before, I don't want the cormorant to just be a caldari thrasher, but what I think this illustrates is just how much redundant CPU there is on this thing. not only am I over powergrid by a whopping 20% I'm under CPU by the same again. swapping down to an afterburner doesn't solve the problem either as I'm still over by around 12pg units. the thrasher by comparison?
http://i.imgur.com/dKipM.jpg
fitting to spare on both PG and CPU, fair bit extra grid available but that can be exploited by fitting projectile weapon rigs or swapping out the rocket launcher in favour of a neut or nos. and of course permitting the fitting room for the artillery thrasher layout.
This is, I feel the problem with the cormorant in the current situation. the slot layout is fine, awesome even. as it lets the cormorant stand to one side of its otehr destroyer bretheren with less firepower but the advantage of a utility mid for a web or tracking disruptor or hell, even a sebo.
at the moment I can get by on my double web, scram, afterburner mids and damage control low layout and honestly i'm quite happy at the moment with it but if there has to be changes for the cormorant (which I believe there is) I don't believe it should be to turn it into a blaster thrasher which i feel the 8/3/2 layout most certainly will. nor do I particularly see the need for the cormorant to recieve extra slots or have its 8th highslot moved (which in my mind seems overkill to solving the problems with the hull.
Alternately, there is the medium ancillery shield booster, which at first impressions seems like a good interm solution for the pilots but should we shackle the effectiveness of a hull to one specific way of flying it? its a problem which thankfully is being addressed with the frigate rebalances but should, in my mind, be something we don't fall into with the destroyers.
swing the cormorant's PG and CPU around a bit, maybe a 10-15% swing both ways, give us the option to fit half way decent weapons along side Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
The new Cormorant will be able to fit this:
[Cormorant, New] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Scrambler II (or Warp Disruptor II)
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S [empty high slot]
Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer
308 dps with navy AM, 246 dps with Null, 8703 HP. Fitting 125mm Railguns is also possible with a 4% PG implant or by adding an ACR.
Is it as good as an AC Thrasher? Not quite, but it's much closer. It could certainly use a bit more powergrid and another turret hardpoint.
The real complaint by many people here is that they want a blaster Cormorant optimized for close range combat. Would people be happier with losing the 10% optimal bonus for a 5% damage bonus? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:25:00 -
[93] - Quote
I'm sorry takeshi, I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least from my own perspective. Its not that i want the cormorant optimised for short range combat, its more that i don't want it to be a carbon copy of the thrasher, which sad to say as your fitting of the new proposed layout clearly demonstrates.
lows:
damage control damage mod
mids
medium shield extender microwarp drive warp scrambler/disruptor
highs
7 turrets + utility slot
rigs
3X shield rig
its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:40:00 -
[94] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. as for the optimal bonus, I ADORE the double optimal bonuses, it allows the cormorant to fight at the edge of scram range as a counter to the rawr dps of the thrasher and the catalyst. encouraging people to fight smarter than just turning it into a raw "orbit at 500" dps race.
Okay, you have convinced me that changing the slot layout would be bad.
Why are you making the comparison with a blaster fit Cormorant though? Fitting a blaster Cormorant means trying to emulate the Thrasher (and failing because it's meant to use railguns). An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 13:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
i guess we all want 4 mids on the cormorant and have it balanced through fittings. concerning the catalyst. maybe it needs to be bonused more around its brawling nature. falloff will not help there in my opinion. maybe give it a bonus to speed or armor hp. so lvl destroyer would equal something like an 200mm plate, without the speed reduction?
EDIT: is there a reason for the intaki, quafe, interbus.... catalyst which are currently registered in the market on TQ? |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 17:17:00 -
[96] - Quote
takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.
[Cormorant, Wundercorm] Damage Control II
Experimental 1MN Afterburner I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Stasis Webifier II Stasis Webifier II
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S [empty high slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Hybrid Locus Coordinator I
web and scram target, hold range at 7-8km and unleash Thorium Tungsten plasma bolts into the opposition :D
This is the distinction the 4 midslot layout makes for the blaster cormorant over the thrasher, admittedly a VERY specialised fit it goes a long way to show how you can approach the same kind of situation (scram range destroyer combat) while featuring a drastically different play style to its counterparts :D
the 4 mids does a lot to alter how the cormorant wants to fight in my opinion differening from the catalyst and thrasher by being a hull which WANT to hold range but rather than using 20km death lazors like the coercer it uses Ewar to hold distance and deal with foes and I really hope CCP keeps the cormorant as the hip and trendy cool kids boat it is and not turn it into a conforming hipster dessie :> Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
499
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 18:40:00 -
[97] - Quote
No reason that empty high slot couldn't or shouldn't be moved to a low though. |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:25:00 -
[98] - Quote
true, but all told we don't want another merlin situation where it becomes the top dog and that extra high has some uses in other fits and can always be filled with a rocket launcher. or small neut, particularly once we get the PG and CPU fixed. I also think its important that the cormorant STAYS with less dps overall than the thrasher and catalyst, giving it room for a magstab on top of a damage control would be taking the micky I reckon :S Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
290
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:33:00 -
[99] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.
I'm not convinced by this. Rails give you a better ship overall. Trying to use blasters for kiting in web range is counterproductive. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:42:00 -
[100] - Quote
You'd be suprised, I actually used to use a 75mm rail CNAM layout for the same job but I found the null blasters with a single locus rig do the job a bit better, 8.2km optimal is pretty damn snazzy for 233ish dps :>
feel free to check my killboard Takeshi, all my recent cormorant kills have been in that layout and I'm still going strong ^_^ Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
188
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:44:00 -
[101] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid. Trasher 7 high/ 7 turrets 3 mid 3 low then we have balance ! anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit. You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.
+1
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
213
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. DO NOT CHANGE THE COERCER FOR F*CKS SAKE.
This is literally one of the best ships in teh game, precicesly because it has one mid. Dont change it. Please! what can i do to change your minds on this? Low-sec Best-sec |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
370
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:19:00 -
[103] - Quote
chatgris wrote: Catalyst - will remain subpar since it's got the worst damage projection, and only 2 mids.
Catalyst needs a third mid for a web. It currently sucks in almost every fight with the exception of suiciding hulks in high sec belts. These changes do nothing to make it approach the effectiveness of the Thrasher in any real combat scenario. The only advantage it had over the current coercer was the ability to fit a point. That advantage is now gone too. |
Aurum Gallente
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
This destroyer's rebalance will change nothing. Just useless westing of time and resources. They need new role bonuses like mwd\ab boost, middle-range webifieres, long-range small neutralizers for effective fight against frigates-tacklers or good boost of target painting.
Just give them all that frigates hate. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
129
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:58:00 -
[105] - Quote
My opinion is that all destroyers should be changed to this base off the previous posts. I agree on the idea of a removal of a high and turret slow in exchange for a damage bonus would be better and relocating that high to a low or mid:
Catalyst: 7 hi/ 7 turret 3 mid 3 low
CPU: 195 PG: 80
Drone Bay: 25 m3 Bandwidth: 15 m3
Role: 50% falloff and tracking
Bonus: 5% small hybrid damage and 10% falloff per level
This will turn the catalyst into brawling anti-frigate blasterboat and not infringe on the cormorant's rail sniping abilities.
Coercer: 7 hi/ 7 turret 2 mid 4 low
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Drone Bay: 10 m3 Bandwidth: 5 m3
Bonus: 5% small energy rof and 10% reduction in capacitor usage per level.
CPU: 180 PG: 90
This will make the coercer the way it is but an additional mid to tackle.
Cormorant: 7 hi/7 turret 4 mid 2 low
CPU: 215 PG: 77
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Bonus: 5% hybrid damage and 10% optimal range per level.
This will make cormorant more on par with other destroyers, but inferior to the catalyst for close range blasters.
Thrasher: 7 hi/ 7 turret 3 mid 3 low
CPU: 205 PG: 82
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Bonus: 5% projectile damage and 10% falloff per level.
I am not sure about whether the thrasher should have double falloff or double optimal since it can fly with either artillery or autocannons. |
Hrett
Justified Chaos
147
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 05:45:00 -
[106] - Quote
Im no massive experts on Dessies, but I fly them on occasion and you see a lot of them in FW.
Here are the common fits you see in FW and why people fly them:
Corm ( awesome sniper) Coercer (brick or sniper or cockbag (insta-lock alpha)) Thrasher (OP, Cockbag, AC kiter, AC in your face, awesome slot layout). Catalyst (because some crazies (like myself) like to fly Gallente ships just because - really no other reason).
Cat is the worst dessie already. These suggested changes make it even worse.. Cat is a gallente ship that needs to be able to fit full tackle. Other than for suicide ganking an unmoving hauler, people just rarely fit blasters on them because of the lack of tackle. If it needs to be balanced in other ways, that is fine, but give it a third mid. It is outclassed as a Rail ship by the Corm, and blaster fits dont work because there is a lack of web. Thus, there is really no reason to use it.
Basically, just because the Catalyst is a good high-sec suicide gank blaster boat doesnt mean it is balanced for normal pvp. :)
I'm probably typing on an iPad, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 07:32:00 -
[107] - Quote
Cat needs more power grid for a start.
How woud swapping the optimal bonus for another fall off bonus or even split 25% of both would this improve DPS projection enough to make a web less needed? |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 07:50:00 -
[108] - Quote
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 |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 09:02:00 -
[109] - Quote
I was flying the Coercer some time. Main problem is that CCP had done good work with Incursus and Merlin (okay Punisher is a joke) . Rifter was op in comparison to the others. Waht CCP maybe not sees is that Thrasher is actually completely op in comparison to the other dessies. Minus one low slot on Coercer will hurt but okay it is amarr, it simply has to suck. Coercer would need more CPU and Capacitor. An arty Thrasher can fire 10 mins and longer, Coercer not. What CCP does also not see is the cost aspect. With 8 turrets you need to get minimum 4 mil ammo in a coercer that it works (4 crystals). Putting ammo for close and long range hurts much more with minimum 6 or 8m. An Arty Thrasher for fast skirmish maybe needs 0,8m in ammo and it works. Total imbalance here. TBH Coercer should even be better than the others BECAUSE the loss in ammo alone is HORRIBLY higher than in other ships and hurts much more. It should be: Better ship=higher risk and not equal ship but higher risk because of laser ammo. I agree that Cormorant sucks and would really need mor buff. Catalyst probably too and Coercer would need more cap and cpu. We need an end of these 20 Thrasher gangs. I would be happy to see a 20cormorant gang for example. Actually Thrasher can do everything and is total overpowered. The other 3 dessies need more buff. Especially the cormorant.
|
Dorah Hawkwing
Old Galactic Earth Regiment
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 09:03:00 -
[110] - Quote
Removing the 4rth low on the coerer defenitely takes away it's ability to tank and gank at the same time.
I was able to fit it with 6000 ehp tank + 2 HS II and an engagement range out to 38 km's :) Now I will ahve to either sacrifice a HS or tank.. in either case, it looses uniqueness. I was able to sucessfully deal with any other destroyer out there. Either by warping out when they sniped, or by simply outlasting them while delivering 280 dps on target. Usually by the time they realised my tank wasn't breaking and ther glasscannon was going down, they didn't have the time anymore to align and warp. Tanky designs on the other hand got out-dpsed.
No need for scram.
Removing one low wil reduce this aspect, by either taking away tank or dps, in both cases making the performance mediocre and taking away the uniqueness of the coercer. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
292
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 11:06:00 -
[111] - Quote
The main reason why Thrashers are so popular is artillery. It's just a notch above railguns and beam lasers.
It does low dps on paper, but in reality against the targets destroyers are meant to engage, it actually tends to do higher effective dps because the first shot is free damage. This concept is graphically explained here: http://i.imgur.com/NvtEG.png
It's also has the lowest fitting requirements, selectable damage types and doesn't need cap. Too many advantages. The fact that Thrashers have the equivalent of 8.75 guns vs the other destroyers having 8 or 7 certainly doesn't help either. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
243
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 14:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
Personally I'm in favour of removing the utility high from the Cormorant and moving it to a low. That or just giving another slot to destroyers in general.
|
VR Highfive
Hayabusa Hikotai
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 17:08:00 -
[113] - Quote
I am joining the 'Keep the 4 mids on the Cormorant!' club.
I am a big Cormorant fan. <3 The 4 mids is what makes this little ship unique and versatile. I'd hate to see that changed and have the Thrasher slot layout. 4 mids allows a decent shield tank or plenty or ewar or dual prop and full tackle etc. This is the advantage it has over its competitors who generally have more dps and or speed.
Personally I like I like the slot layout on the Cormy the way it is and I don't think an exchanging of high to a low slot is neccesary or giving it 8 turret hardpoints for more dps. As it is it can field 7 turrets AND 1 launcher which is great . I don't hear people mention that in this thread.
I do like the extra tank proposed, it is lacking in that regard compared to the Thrasher (dunno how that compares to the Cat or the Coercer).
Cormy love <3!
I like the extra mid on the Coercer - 1 low.
Haven;'t flow the Cat at all so can't really comment
Make the Thrasher better than it already is hmmm.... not sure about that. It is already head and shoulders above the rest. But we'll see how they fly when the changes hit SiSi.
http://haykilogs.blogspot.com/ Learning solo PvP, one explosion at a time. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 23:11:00 -
[114] - Quote
The catalyst is still an unfocused mess after this change - falloff and optimal bonuses leave it in a confused position compared to the other three. One solution might be to split the class in half by swapping out the optimal role bonuses on the catalyst and thrasher for falloff bonuses to make them more dedicated close-range ships compared to the sniper-focused cormorant and coercer. That would leave the catalyst in an unusual position of having a double-falloff bonus, but I'm not familiar enough with small blasters to guess if that would be a good thing, or whether the Destroyer skill falloff bonus would then need switching to something else. 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. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
500
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 00:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:The main reason why Thrashers are so popular is artillery. It's just a notch above railguns and beam lasers. It does lower dps on paper, but in reality against the targets destroyers are meant to engage, it actually tends to do higher effective dps because the first shot is free damage and it has high alpha. This concept is graphically explained here: http://i.imgur.com/NvtEG.pngIt's also has the lowest fitting requirements, selectable damage types and doesn't need cap. Too many advantages. The fact that Thrashers have the equivalent of 8.75 guns vs the other destroyers having 8 or 7 certainly doesn't help either.
Destroyer vs. Destroyer is like two midgets shooting bazookas at eachother. Artillery is very nice and I cut my pvp teeth on arty thrashers. They are also VERY susceptible to AB frigates or Dual prop frigates. Their massive alpha only goes out every 6 seconds or so. If you time your shot wrong or need to change ammo types you can easily be screwed. The 125mm rail Catalyst sends a salvo downrange every 1.53 seconds. A gank fit Coercer can shoot in 2 seconds or less. The challenge is placed more on the frigate to get into position before it is obliterated off of the field. |
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 09:08:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
I am concerned that ships undergoing re-balancing are starting to look a bit too.....standardized. While standardization makes balancing easier, it saps uniqueness and variation from the different races and ships within the same class.
The slot layouts for destroyers....8/2/3 or 8/3/2. You did this also for the EAFs.....2/4/3 or 2/5/2.
Where's the variation? Why are there only 2 slot layouts per class instead of 3 or 4? I don't want to jump in a Caldari destroyer after flying an Minni destroyer, and feel like I'm flying the same ship but with different guns.
Can you take some time to explain your philosophy on keeping ships within the same class unique, while making them balanced?
(And the cormorant needs to keep it's 4th midslot....thanks :)) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
248
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 09:29:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lunaleil Fournier wrote: .. legitimate concern .. Spot on. If we wanted 'more of the same' Eve Online wouldn't be our addiction in the first place .. Give us variety! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 12:17:00 -
[118] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Lunaleil Fournier wrote: .. legitimate concern .. Spot on. If we wanted 'more of the same' Eve Online wouldn't be our addiction in the first place .. Give us variety! See my comments above about splitting the role bonus to create 2 short range ships and 2 snipers. 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. |
Sophie Cry
Saltatio Vita AAA Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:00:00 -
[119] - Quote
WTB A DESTROYER CLASS THAT IS USED TO FIND LIKE RECONS OR BOMBERS ANYTHING WITH A CLOAK
MAYBE SOME SORT OF DEPTH CHARGE OR DIRECTION BASED SCANNER (LIKE A BOMBER HAS TO BE POINTED AT THE TARGET) or even use it like a cyno or something something with poor tank that cant move but lights up a say 20k area or something
i think its gay how one dude in a bomber can keep 10 guys trying to mine or run plex at bay while he goes to taco bell
btw i dont mean keep them visable maybe show position for 3 seconds or something like that
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Marquie-X Corp Ewoks
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:11:00 -
[120] - Quote
T2 Version: Corvette
A cloak-ship hunter. A bit out-of-the-box Ideas.....
Corvettes have special equipment to hunt down cloaked ships.
High-Energy Flashlight: This high intensive light beam overloads the light bending cloaking technique that keeps stealth ships invisible. Also it cannot defeat the sensor cloaking of a stealth ship. Function: All 20 Seconds a beam with 30 degrees is emitted up to 100km. In this beam a cloak ship becomes visibile, but not targetable via Overview or right-click onto it. Also it is only visible for Corvette Class ships. The beam is emittet into the viewing area of the pilot, similar to the directional scanner.
Light, Medium and Heavy Plasma-Mortar These weapons firing a contained plasma field similiar to Blasters. A small cartridge containing the field generator are fired from the barrel, emitting a force field containing the plasma, dragging the field behind the cartridge. After the battery charge of the cartridge runs dry, the plasma is no longer containted and a violent explosion errupts. Function: The Plasma-Mortar fires in the direction of the viewing area, similiar to a directional scanner. The Mortar has fixed ranges and area effects, the splash damage becomes weaker every 100m. Light Mortars have the shortest range, but a big radius, while heavy mortars firing a longer distance but with less area effect.
Stardust-Cruise Missile System: The Stardust Cruise Missile System is the combination of Scanner Probes and a warp-cable Cruise Missile System. A cloaked ship in space leaves a shadow, an anomaly into gravity and starlight. Blankness, perfect void space were normally something shoul be. It is the silence, in an Ocean full of noise. This hole in space becomes easier to detect the longer a ship remains in place or moving with sub-warp speed in the same area. In the first hour it is impossible to find an cloaked ship as long as you don't put the probes on the same grid as the cloaked ship. With every hour afterwards, the area to detect increases. The Stardust-Cruise Missile locks on the probes, travels by warp speed in the vincinity of the target and explodes. The nuclear charge creates a small area damage effect, but more importantly, the strong EMP weakens the cloak and a full hit deactivated it. Afterwards a conventional scanning-ship can detect the hidden raider. Function: Probes with an special probe launcher. Works like conventional scanning. Detection range is deternined by cloak duration and starts after one hour. Stardust Missiles weakens the cloak and can make it possible to warp on the same grid or to decloak. Startdust Missiles are fired from the same launcher as the probes.
Maybe as an direction a new way to install a cloak vs. counter cloak with modification of implemented features. |
|
Quontor Zarrkos
Zervas Aeronautics WHY so Seri0Us
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:22:00 -
[121] - Quote
I really like your idea to have some counter to 'afk cloakers' who just go camp systems forever. It's a bit farfetched though. maybe we just need some special kind of probes who can detect cloaked ships. (which would be easier the longer the cloak stays active). |
Krall Hoar
TunDraGon
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hello folks, While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic. This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far. As always, constructive comments are welcome. Suggested changes are mentioned below: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.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
- Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
- Sensor strength: 10 Radar
- Signature radius: 62
CORMORANT: Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
- Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 200 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
- Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
- Signature radius: 65 (-3)
CATALYST: Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
- Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
- Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
- Signature radius: 68 (+3)
THRASHER: Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
- Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
- Signature radius: 56
MODULES: The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I really, really, really hope this is not the main topic of the winter expansion. Maybe I am just greedy, but I think there should be more within an expansion than just balancing/redoing of existing stuff, especially if the last expansion was the same (yes the new missiles are great, but they didn't really effect the game and all the other stuff is not really effecting my low sec pirate life. [and yes I hope you won't do that crap with the sentry guns in low sec]). There needs to be some hand-tight within next epansion. OK I know you are working on incarna, fine with that. but I would like to get something real in the next expansion. Thats it, my opinion shared |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Marquie-X Corp Ewoks
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:27:00 -
[123] - Quote
Quontor Zarrkos wrote:I really like your idea to have some counter to 'afk cloakers' who just go camp systems forever. It's a bit farfetched though. maybe we just need some special kind of probes who can detect cloaked ships. (which would be easier the longer the cloak stays active).
That's basically the Idea behind "Stardust". And the ideas are not spelled out by the point to a comma, since stuff like that must be tested on SiSi and not purely brained together. I just see that some slight modifications could give both sides entertainment. |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
314
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
That 15 cpu is going to hurt the cormorant. So now I have to fit a cpu rig instead of a powergrid. I guess fixing one aspect and breaking another isn't the way to go about this |
Arline Kley
Galactic Rangers
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
Not much really to say, but FINALLY the 2nd mid on the Coercer - at least now I can fly with it without having to worry about speed or the ability to stop things; I had thought about this a while back (and I haven't really had the time to go back over it recently) and i made a thread about it here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=123292&find=unread
[/grautious thread plug]
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Cheekybiatch
Dark-Rising
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:41:00 -
[126] - Quote
Honestly we need 2 set of destroyers, you don't need need to change the model just give them 2 skin colours and a slightly different name.
1) Focused on long range weapons, with 2 mids 3 lows, focused on shields, aglity. 2) Focused on Short range weapons, with 3 mids 2 lows, focused on armour, speed.
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
Projects are also still favoured over the damage spectrum they can easily do.
So just give all the destroyers the option to use missiles and their native weapon selection, 8/8. or 7/7 whatever. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:49:00 -
[127] - Quote
Cheekybiatch wrote:
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
This is very much not true. |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
470
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:53:00 -
[128] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme If you don't see a problem in 0.0 eroding into two big super-coalitions and a few hangers on in areas nobody cares about.. then you don't have brains. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 18:44:00 -
[129] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time.
Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot" |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
302
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:34:00 -
[130] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time. Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot"
Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules.
That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy per shot. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
180
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:59:00 -
[131] - Quote
I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.
And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.
Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1801
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:01:00 -
[132] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I always happen to feel destroyers should be a little faster because cruisers and battlecruisers kill them so fast... But on the other hand it is difficult to tell with the incredible tracking from autocannons with the combination of huge fall-off bonus on tracking enhancers.
And to critics I tell you they NEED the tracking from the current role bonus. And tbh it might not even be sufficient enough depending on how strong these destroyers are supposed to be... Also as destroyers would there be a point to increase their sensor strength? After all even some noobships carry a 30% bonus towards ecm these days... 10% would seem enough if they absolutely had to do it.
Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky
Keep the gimp fittings on the Catalyst and give it a 25m^3 drone bay+bandwidth...
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
47
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
I'd like some explanations for the catalyst : same weapon than the cormoran, one more turret, armor like, but less PG... and the thrasher which have more PG than both of them whereas it have 7 of the easiest weapons to fit... That is a joke. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:33:00 -
[134] - Quote
---begin hijack--- Why couldn't you just come up with a similar thread for mining barges / exhumers change as it was announced? ... In other words you came up with a decent change instead of a good one. ---end hijack--- |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:49:00 -
[135] - Quote
[quote=Pinky Denmark Btw - why does the catalyst get the ultimate role as a blaster ship with a joker small drone? If you want it with drones why not remove a turret and give it 10m3 drone bay/with. Otherwise strip it and wait for the second destroyer...
Pinky[/quote]
That drone is a godsend when completing minor FW plexes in blaster cat. |
JetCord
Dewa Brotherhood Lost Obsession
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:55:00 -
[136] - Quote
when can we test this on the test server? |
Alastanir
NOMAD. RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:59:00 -
[137] - Quote
I really like what I'm seeing here. Well done. o7 |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
503
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 21:31:00 -
[138] - Quote
I sometimes put an ECM drone in the catalyst. It's comical when it actually gets a jam. |
Lord BryanII
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 22:52:00 -
[139] - 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.
you guys are renaming the lazors, or you were supposed to. was a dev blog written about it. /facepalm
hope that has not just fallen off
|
Oki Riverson
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 23:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
Great changes for the Coercer! Finally I can put Destroyer skills to use...The Com should have missiles imo though. Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^ |
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 23:45:00 -
[141] - Quote
Guess I'll be forced to train small lasers... Cormorant seems like a blaster mirror of the Thrasher. Meh! to the rest of it. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:11:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hello folks, While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic. This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far. As always, constructive comments are welcome. Suggested changes are mentioned below: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.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
- Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
- Sensor strength: 10 Radar
- Signature radius: 62
CORMORANT: Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
- Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 200 CPU (-15)
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
- Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
- Signature radius: 65 (-3)
CATALYST: Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
- Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
- Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
- Signature radius: 68 (+3)
THRASHER: Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.
- Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
- Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
- Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
- Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
- Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
- Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
- Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
- Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
- Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
- Signature radius: 56
MODULES: The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
These changes are very interesting since you apparently removed all the hard-points from all the destroyers... All you other rebalancing threads tell us how many turrets/launchers the ships can fit. |
Bob Niac
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 00:40:00 -
[143] - Quote
I admit .. I lol'ed when i saw the Thrasher was "basically unchanged." Devs must seriusly love the Matari. I <3 Logistics: Pilot of all -áT2 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. |
Cheekybiatch
Dark-Rising
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:15:00 -
[144] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Cheekybiatch wrote:
It is getting pointless that the only "good" destroyer in PVP is the thrasher, mostly due to it's 3 mid and l2 ow slots that everyone else lacks currently.
This is very much not true.
I MAKE LOUD NOISES AND STATEMENTS WITHOUT BACKUP.
But please randomly quote and then ignore the other threads about how much the thrasher is better suited to PVP, which it is and needs to be addressed, not as a issue of balance more as an issue of these other ships need to function better in a PVP enviroment.
Yes the mid and low slot shuffle is great but it doesn't address the key issue of thrasher will always be more desirable than the others, what could be changed to fix that.
You know hence the other parts in my thread if read them. |
J Random
L F C Ethereal Dawn
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:27:00 -
[145] - Quote
I'm still trying to figure out the intent here as it drives the ship design.
What I keep seeing on the BBS here is folk want them to effectively be low-end new tier3 BC's but for frigates, i.e. all alpha gank, no tank. In that case, 1 mid is fine, up the scan res so you can actually lock and shoot a frigate before it warps.
That's really the only role I can see here. Chasing somebody down is a interceptors job and straight out brawling would be an assault frigate (which owns dessies).
Would like to see, instead of cookie cutter with each races having the same thing other than model (i.e. the new tier3 bc's) is maybe adopting them to racial play style. Make the minnie dessie more of a brawler (with buffer for the gate guns), the amarr more alpha fit, the caldari and gallant more tacklish (given the missile/drone damage delay).
What I DON'T want is what I'm seeing with the frigates is dps is creep where we make everything do triple dps and give it triple tank just so folk can say "wow I do 10K dps and have a 5M tank". Hitting for 2 dps is the same as 800 dps is you quit tank creeping. I also don't want to get into the situation, like with the AF's and Tech 3's, where they own the next level or two up the totem pole. The new AF's are going toe-to-toe with T1 cruisers and Tech3's with BS's .. that is wrong as it's going to force you to keep balancing everything up which is the doom of the vast majority of long lived paper-based games, i.e.each new sourcebook triples the damage. |
Jett0
Surface Warfare Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 01:35:00 -
[146] - Quote
As an Amarr pilot, thank you.
By the way, the medium/light laser confusion gave me a random, terrible idea:
What if, in addition to range bonuses to light guns, destroyers had small fitting bonuses to mediums? Not on par with t3 battlecruisers, but something that gives a range between a full set of lights vs. a half set of mediums with other stuff in high slots. Maybe not this idea exactly, but something to shake up the fitting possibilities. Occasionally plays sober |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 02:18:00 -
[147] - Quote
Nvm... it's been addressed |
Selnix
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 02:40:00 -
[148] - Quote
Oki Riverson wrote: Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^
This please! |
iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
37
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 06:57:00 -
[149] - Quote
Unfortunately some of us don't give a damn about (T1) destroyers. I haven't flown one in the last 3 years and don't intend to ever in the future.
I know why these changes are necessary: You think DUST players will want decent ships within the first 30 seconds of starting EVE, something they can get into a fight with and hope to kill something. While I can see why you want to satisfy them, have you considered that any DUST player that lacks the patience to wait a few weeks to get into decent ship won't become a long term EVE subscriber anyway?
I think you are spending too much time on balancing the beginner ships at the expense of leaving serious gameplay issues that affect older players completely unfixed. In particular, I would rather see a post about giving supercaps proper roles and abilities than about adding 6 CPU to a destroyer. Track your wealth with EVE Stats: https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |
Keith Arika
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 08:22:00 -
[150] - Quote
So catalyst is still worst of them, all seem to have 3 mid slots, and cat has drone bay, maybe it should be considered to give him some bonus to speed or to web drones, so lack of middle slot would be at least a bit less painful? If it should be anti-frig boat, it can't do its role unless it has proper tackling abilities. |
|
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-¦t 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-¦t 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-¦t 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-¦t 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.
|
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:09:00 -
[181] - 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-¦t 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?
I run cormorant fleets regularly because they **** all over thrashers in plexes. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:12:00 -
[182] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:Unfortunately some of us don't give a damn about (T1) destroyers. I haven't flown one in the last 3 years and don't intend to ever in the future.
I know why these changes are necessary: You think DUST players will want decent ships within the first 30 seconds of starting EVE, something they can get into a fight with and hope to kill something. While I can see why you want to satisfy them, have you considered that any DUST player that lacks the patience to wait a few weeks to get into decent ship won't become a long term EVE subscriber anyway?
I think you are spending too much time on balancing the beginner ships at the expense of leaving serious gameplay issues that affect older players completely unfixed. In particular, I would rather see a post about giving supercaps proper roles and abilities than about adding 6 CPU to a destroyer.
I use destroyers on an almost daily basis - they are a powerhouse for fw combat. I've probably got at least a thousand kills in a thrasher. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:41:00 -
[183] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: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.
im basing this on the use gallente and caldari frigs T2 and T1 seen in the alliance tournament and on the general praise these ships are getting lately. they are just scary now ;) eve-kill statistics are nice but heavily biased from fleet doctrines in 0.0 as well as habits of the average eve player. these statistics are influenced by a lot more factors then just the balance between the ships.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
95
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 21:40:00 -
[184] - Quote
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance? |
Tarn Kugisa
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 23:37:00 -
[185] - Quote
I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action. I Endorse this Product and/or Service Source Recorder-esque tool for EVE |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 00:04:00 -
[186] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action.
I hear they're adding some rocket destroyers to the game. And drone destroyers. Just sayin. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
185
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 11:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time. Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot" Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules. That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy each cycle
Except that knowing the joules and the cycle time, you can calculate the watts. It'd be kind of silly if the numbers didn't match up. . |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:39:00 -
[188] - Quote
everything seem to be in order except : thrasher still has the damage bonus,while other 3 destroyers dont. cormorant : slot layout is somehow better now,but whitout proper bonuses (usefull bonuses) it still cannot compete with the rest of desssies.
keep up the good work |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:41:00 -
[189] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance?
mate,next time think about what u say.
light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
402
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:54:00 -
[190] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth? How is this balance? mate,next time think about what u say. light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage Thrasher can fit a full rack of highest tier (200mm) autocannons and still sport a massive tank. The catalyst struggles with moderate tank and medium tier (ion) light blasters. How is that balance?
Current Thrasher is faster, longer range, more EHP*dps. Perhaps the changes in shield/armor/structure changes that equation - probably not.
Add in selectable damage type (more effective DPS especially against more Tech 2 ships), dps not susceptible to neuts (versus more vulnerable to ecm), and engagement envelope of the short range Thrasher completely covers the limited engagement envelope of the short range Catalyst. |
|
Alara IonStorm
2989
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 19:50:00 -
[191] - Quote
Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.
+ 1 Mid Coercer + 1 Low Thrasher + 1 Mid Catalyst + 1 Low Cormorant
None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.
Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
33
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 20:13:00 -
[192] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.
+ 1 Mid Coercer + 1 Low Thrasher + 1 Mid Catalyst + 1 Low Cormorant
None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.
Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them.
I agree I think you could just add a slot to all the Destroyers with the changes your making to all the frigates and still not over power them, especially if you didn't increase the fittings more than you are. |
Whisperen
That's Not A Knife Flatline.
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 01:28:00 -
[193] - Quote
The coercer do not need a extra mid for a point most things die before they can warp away the extra low has far more value. If anything the only thing the coercer needs is more Cap capacity so it can run a prop mod and guns for longer. |
Lili Lu
342
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 02:10:00 -
[194] - Quote
I think you guys need to rethink the racial straightjackets you are only exagerating. In this regard you limit pg and cpu on gallente ships to force blasters and bless pg and cpu on caldari to allow rails. This has unintended consequences. Such as allowing viable tanky blaster fits on caldari ships while not allowing viable sniper kiter fits on gallente ships. This is not balanced.
Also, the cormorant range ability is creating the typical extreme Caldari fit problem. Here with destroyers it is around 100km sniping destroyers (this most often shows up with all ecm mod ecm boats and ridiculous particularly pve shield tanks). Knock that optimal bonus down to 5% or at most 7.5% please. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 10:37:00 -
[195] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance? mate,next time think about what u say. light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage
I did not compare the 200mm to anything, I just showed that the biggest of the small autocannons are as hard/easy to fit as the smallest of the small hybrid guns. You don't see a problem with that? Combined with the fact that Thrasher has 10 PG more to play around with...
The way I see it, it's a problem with the powerfulness of the blasters in big numbers. CCP limits the PG on the catalyst so we can't fit a full rack of Neutron blasters together with tank, and sport a Thrasher sized tank with 700 dps.
What they need to do, is to remove the drone, drop down to 6 turret hardpoints, add 2 missile hardpoints and add 5 powergrid and 10 cpu.
Then we can fit 6 of the biggest guns and a decent tank without going crazy with dps, and if we fit ion blasters, we can add 2 rocket launchers as well.
TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
161
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 11:38:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints
Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay"
Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 11:57:00 -
[197] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints
Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay" Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot. Nah, it works very well with Null IMO |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
410
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:54:00 -
[198] - Quote
I just think they need to give the Catalyst some engagement envelope where it can be "king" like they did with the hybrid rebalance last year for the other Gallente hulls. Unfortunately, the hybrid rebalance falls apart when you have 8 turrets on your ship.
Either range control, more damage, or more tank. It need something to make it a better extreme close range ship than the Thrasher. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 00:52:00 -
[199] - Quote
Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 11 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's. |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 01:34:00 -
[200] - Quote
Who needs a point in a coercer when you're with friends? Seems like it's a good spot for ewar or something of the like. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 13:04:00 -
[201] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's.
Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever. 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. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 13:18:00 -
[202] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Galphii wrote:Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's. Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever. Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's. |
Lili Lu
344
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 14:08:00 -
[203] - Quote
Galphii wrote: Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's. Would be better if that was the other way around. The slot and hp differentials between cruisers and BCs should not be so pronounced. There were the statements out of the dev team that they wanted to disuade the rush to tier 2 BC. Regardless, we will be waiting a long time before they do anything with BCs it seems. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
381
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 18:38:00 -
[204] - Quote
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Lili Lu
346
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 20:59:00 -
[205] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
382
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 21:08:00 -
[206] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats.
I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Lili Lu
346
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 21:57:00 -
[207] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. Using drones also means committing to the fight, whereas the fragile destroyer hulls need to stay aligned and ready to warp out.
I would rather see a rocket based destroyer with a +50% rocket velocity bonus. With missile speed & flight duration rigs it can reach out to 30 km using javlin rockets. That's more than adequate range, offers selectable damage types like drones and suffers less from delayed damage. And, of course the Caldari one will have an additional 10% missile speed bonus so it won't need rigs to do that, and it will be faster than the gallente one and even possibly the amarr one.
I posted that not because I was necessarilly thrilled with a Minmatar, Amarr, or Gallente drone-based destroyer. It was just that your post did make sense pointing out the tech II amarr frigates where the skills would be directly transferable. And, it would be a kick to train some drone skills for a minmatar destroyer (one that might actually have some speed to combat kiting missile boats) that would not be wasted sp in view of the phoon (well pretty much any ship has some dronage anyway). |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 02:01:00 -
[208] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats. It does seem to be happening that way - typically, Minmatar have had better drone ships than Amarr (arbitrator hulls not withstanding) so this is a very new direction. We might be seeing more Matari missile hulls than drone hulls. |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 04:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
The frigates have received replies to the feedback from CCP.
Why have we not heard anything from Yttribium besides the first page posts, don't tell me he's gone to vacation.
With the current state of how frigs are being adjusted and changed, I think it would be fairly reasonable to give destroyers an additional slot.
Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 18:45:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote: Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.
They do excel at destroying frigates. |
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 21:48:00 -
[211] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Ashera Yune wrote: Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.
They do excel at destroying frigates.
If you look at the buffs that the frigates are all receiving then you would realize that it won't be long before destroyers are pointless again.
All the tech 1 frigate are receiving buffs that make them fairly crazy compared to their current state.
While destroyers are only get a minor adjustment, throwing off the balance. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
415
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 23:27:00 -
[212] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:While destroyers are only get a minor adjustment, throwing off the balance. Destroyers in numbers > All frigates in numbers. Solo frigates (all types) > Dessies (if done right)
Not a problem. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 23:36:00 -
[213] - Quote
Destroyers can already kill AF and these new frigates are not better than AF. BTW, they are getting a buff ; that is the whole point of this thread.
If you want to make destroyers as OP compared to frigates as BC currently are compared to cruisers, I think you are wrong. If frigates have been buffed, they still are on a frigate level, because their buff is basicaly based on the rifter. And BTW, I checked the forums : main complaint is ASB, not merlin killing destroyers even though they seem very good at killing rifters and other frigates. |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 05:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Destroyers can already kill AF and these new frigates are not better than AF. BTW, they are getting a buff ; that is the whole point of this thread.
If you want to make destroyers as OP compared to frigates as BC currently are compared to cruisers, I think you are wrong. If frigates have been buffed, they still are on a frigate level, because their buff is basicaly based on the rifter. And BTW, I checked the forums : main complaint is ASB, not merlin killing destroyers even though they seem very good at killing rifters and other frigates.
Destroyers are supposed to be Anti-frigate ships. They are OP vs frigates, but everything bigger is OP against them.
Destroyers adjustments must be made with the frigate buffs in mind. If destroyers are no good against frigates, then they are no good at all.
A lot of frigates are receiving a big makeover such as more slots, more ehp, more fitting, better ship bonuses.
What is the destroyer getting? A very minor and questionable change, the cormorant loses with mid for a low, all the destroyers are getting their sig radius bigger again. The thrasher still remains the only real destroyer to fly. The catalyst sucks for anything except suicide ganking and still has the same terrible fitting, its worse than the cormorant which fits shields and has one less turret.
Yttribium were making adjustments based on old data, which shows how out of touch he is with destroyers.
After the first page, he disappears off the face of the earth, leaving us in the dark of what he's planning so far. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 11:19:00 -
[215] - Quote
Is there *any* evidence of destroyers being less effective at killing frigates than they were ? First wave of frigates is released for several months now, and they are the mightest of the bunch and yet, I didn't heard any evidence of destroyer becoming unable to kill them. All we hear is "buff destroyers, just to be sure". |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
387
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 11:24:00 -
[216] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Is there *any* evidence of destroyers being less effective at killing frigates than they were?
There isn't. The notion that destroyers need a buff across the board is just crazy talk. Destroyers are overwhelmingly favored against frigates in general. Some exceptions apply but these are individual cases and not a systemic imbalance.
Drakes & Tengus online: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/fbaugust.jpg |
Rick Rymes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 16:49:00 -
[217] - Quote
My only problem with dessies is that they are slow, give them better speed and agility and boost the warpspeed to 6 au. They are closer to frigs than anything else so why do they handle like cruisers? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
898
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:05:00 -
[218] - Quote
Hey folks,
Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply.
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.
Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role.
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.
The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself.
We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.
Regarding the questions about possibly introducing missiles and drones for destroyers, we agree, that is why both these weapon systems will be introduced with the new four destroyer hulls also coming for Winter. More information on this blog.
It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
99
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:19:00 -
[219] - 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.
Could you comment on my idea that was making it 6 turret hardpoints on it? That would reduce the damage enough so we could fit 6 neutrons and still have about the same dps, but with more range. Range is the problem. Unless you fit 125mm railguns on it, you are going to have a bad time. Simply because armor is too slow to catch up and apply your 1km+1km ranged dps. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:21:00 -
[220] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks,
Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply.
We are mostly fine with the changes so far 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/".
|
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1916
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:23:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role.
I don't agree, but it's a valid reason. :)
Quote: 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.
I... don't agree. Is this internal testing that's with the new hulls or with the old ones?
Quote: We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.
Turn it into an Optimal bonus and I'll love you long time. Also, that would be OP as hell.
Quote: It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.
Truth. I look forward to it. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
422
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:42:00 -
[222] - 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.
*le sigh* /me going to try out ion blaster cat for a while and see what's up. I expect many deaths of my ship. |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:49:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks,
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.
You can't be serious. The cormorant has more powergrid that the Catalyst despite the fact that it is a shield tanker and requires less pg to fit due to it having 7 turrets rather than 8.
There is without a doubt more thrashers being flown than Catalysts. Catalysts are used only for suicide ganks, that's all they are really good for.
The catalyst is gimped when trying to fit railguns, so its obvious you want to make it a blaster boat, if that's the case why don't you change the 50% optimal role bonus to 50% falloff bonus.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
527
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 18:25:00 -
[224] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply. 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. Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role. 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. The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself. We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ. Regarding the questions about possibly introducing missiles and drones for destroyers, we agree, that is why both these weapon systems will be introduced with the new four destroyer hulls also coming for Winter. More information on this blog. It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though.
you mentioned weapon balance in there... would you mind on elaborating on that a little?
what systems are working good where there is room for improvement?
i do like that you are taking a balanced approach to this...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1104
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 18:48:00 -
[225] - Quote
I think destroyers like fit better with less turrets like 6 but increased range. So they can really pop frigates going to be great counter to logi frigates.
Or just trade so
That so have a set of 4 flak cannon type close range anti frigate, and then the misspelled and drones give range to sentry drones and long range missiles http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Alara IonStorm
3003
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 21:18:00 -
[226] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:I think destroyers would work as anti frigate better with less turrets like 6 but increased range. So they can really pop frigates , and going to be a great counter to logi frigates.
Or just trade so
My original idea for destroyer balance when CCP did the first round was for CCP to remove the silly -25% RoF role and the range role bonus, give them 6 high slots with 6 turrets each, one range bonus falloff for Caty / Thrasher and one tracking bonus for the Cormy / Coercer.
Then adjust their slots like this.
- 2 High All
+ 1 Mid Coercer + 1 Low Thrasher + 1 Mid Catalyst + 1 Low Cormorant
Combined with a boost in tank that = about 1000 base HP to each tank stat and a buff to fitting.
The idea was that they had about 50% more fitted buffer then a Frigate, 30%-50% more damage then a Frigate but were slower and had Sigs large enough to be vulnerable to Medium Weapons. |
Lili Lu
351
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 23:33:00 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
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.
The Thrasher, despite its bonus, still has a relatively low damage output - what matters on it is the alpha with the artillery fit and the plentiful fittings left with autocannons - both of which are questions that need to be solved on a weapon system level, not ship hull itself.
We would like the Coercer turret capacitor bonus to stay, as this ship can now have a decent fitting with medium pulses (even medium beams with high skills) which allows it to reach a far better damage projection that it currently does on TQ.
It is difficult to assess the extend of the changes until they go live on the test server for everyone however, which is why we want to wait and give you the possibility to test the changes for yourselves on the destroyers and frigates before considering all of this final though. Please rethink the 10% opotimal bonus on the Cormorant. That should be 5% if you are not going to give any other destroyers a range bonus. As it is a gang of sniper corms siting in a fw plex are pretty much immune to damage and often can kill with relative ease any opposing roughly equal sized gang that enters. If not they simply warp away. Ridiculous sniper corm fits are the norm now.
You still are not fixing the blaster only "choice" you present with the catalyst fitting restrictions. And as XGallentius pointed out above you enable a blaster fit for the Corm. How is this balanced?
The thrasher is still the thrasher.
Cap bonuses blow chunks.
Figure out how to fix the "racial" problems you currently have in-game. Shield and kiting is everything now at pretty much every level, except caps and triage archons with armor buffered BSs. Everything I'm seeing from the re-balancing team is not giving me any confidence that the current ship usage stats will change or become less lopsided. They may become more lopsided. |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
42
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 00:15:00 -
[228] - Quote
The cormorant will be an overall superior blasterboat than the catalyst.
It can pack Scram and Web to keep frigates pinned down and have the PG to fit a small neut, neutron blasters and mwd.
It will do less dps, but has better utility to do its job.
The catalyst will still continue to suck with having only 2 mids that work poorly for blasters and lack luster fitting that prevents putting mwd and neutron blasters together in order to utilize its full potential. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
426
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 01:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
Testing complete. Unless Light Ion Blaster Catalyst starts fight at zero, it is completely and overwhelmingly screwed. Sorry, CCP really needs to re-think the Catalyst. It can't kill frigs. It can't kill otherr destroyers. It is limited to high sec ganks only.
Wanted: Destroyer with relevant engagement envelope.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
53
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 04:44:00 -
[230] - Quote
Is there any idea on when the new destroyers will be unveiled?!! |
|
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 05:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role. 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? |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 07:34:00 -
[232] - Quote
I'm sorry to say this Ytterbium, but I personally think you have no idea what you're doing.
Please let Fozzie take care of this as he is much more responsive to feedback and is balancing other ships, which gives him a better idea how to balance destroyers around how the other ships will be balanced.
EDIT: And yes he is probably busy balancing others, but its a long ways til winter. |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
238
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 07:49:00 -
[233] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:I'm sorry to say this Ytterbium, but I personally think you have no idea what you're doing.
Please let Fozzie take care of this as he is much more responsive to feedback and is balancing other ships, which gives him a better idea how to balance destroyers around how the other ships will be balanced.
EDIT: And yes he is probably busy balancing others, but its a long ways til winter.
I'm sorry to say this Mr. Marshmellow, but I personally think you have no idea what you're doing with this comment. You'd have to sort of see CCP employees as cardboard cut-outs rather than human beings in a social situation to fail to anticipate that you won't get what you want this this comment. So, some observations for you: first, they are coworkers in the same team tasked with the same thing; you should expect that they're talking to each about this just fine, that they're both involved in testing, that any input one of them could give to the other on this has already been given. Second, CCP Fozzie works for CCP, and with CCP Ytterbium. His chattiness with us is just a nice thing that he does which we appreciate. It's not his actual job. If nice things that he does become social problems for his team, or if they become demands upon his coworkers, he may decide on his own that the prudent path is the one where he's less nice. After all, the community has answered his niceness with venom and problems for him. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
388
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 08:09:00 -
[234] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Figure out how to fix the "racial" problems you currently have in-game. Shield and kiting is everything now at pretty much every level, except caps and triage archons with armor buffered BSs. Everything I'm seeing from the re-balancing team is not giving me any confidence that the current ship usage stats will change or become less lopsided. They may become more lopsided. edit - oh and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=122188&find=unread
+1
The game favors kiting as a tactic and there is no solution in sight.
This is not something that can be solved with tiericide. The ships designed to be good brawlers will continue to be niche without a place in gangs even with more slots and better bonuses.
You could make everyone a kiter, but wouldn't it be better to enable brawling as viable tactic in gangs by separating these two playstyles through unique modules that exclude each other?
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of removing speed penalties associated with armor to enable these ships to kite (or catch up with kiters) but that doesn't change the underlying problem of brawling being the inferior tactic. Drakes & Tengus online: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/fbaugust.jpg |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 08:21:00 -
[235] - Quote
Quote:I'm sorry to say this Ytterbium, but I personally think you have no idea what you're doing.
Please let Fozzie take care of this as he is much more responsive to feedback and is balancing other ships, which gives him a better idea how to balance destroyers around how the other ships will be balanced.
EDIT: And yes he is probably busy balancing others, but its a long ways til winter.
sigh... and people wonder why we can't have nice things? Mellow, your comments are counter productive to this discussion and are little more than archaic call back to a todler throwing a tantrum. If we're going to convince the balancing team to alter their plans our best bet is through reasoned arguement and not pathetic posturing. save your bitching for local chat spam and let the man do his job. ytterbium has proven himself more than open to reasoned debate in previous balance threads and its up to us to convince him, not stamp our feet and demand what we want.
anyways, thanks for responding ytterbium even if a little delayed. I still attain that the cormorant would be significantly better served with a 13 unit swing down in CPU and the same up in PG rather than a slow layout alteration.
it would expand the selection of fitting options for the bright eyed capsuleer while still preserving what makes the cormorant stand out among its peers. dps should of course be kept lower than its counterparts as a balancing feature (i'm pretty damn happy with how it is at the moment personally dakka wise, the optimal bonus serving the same role for those willing to play a little more clever) and have to take advantage of the 4 mids as a way to control the engagement rather than the raw facemelt of its compatriots, the 8/3/2 layout would surely be better preserved in favour of the newer intended missile destroyer?
my other main gripe is that with an 8/3/2 layout the cormorant will simply become a blaster clone of the thrasher but with more fitting problems, less speed, less firepower and less agility. I'd much rather maintain the current stats and layout and secure the individuality of the hull rather than just become a generic "blaster thrasher" :( Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 09:49:00 -
[236] - Quote
Well if you'll excuse me the destroyer class has largely been broken for a long time.
With some obvious glaring disparity between the Thrasher and the rest of the destroyers.
The catalyst is one of the most broken destroyers of all, it has a confused mixed of optimal and falloff which only makes it half effective for both blasters and railguns.
It is poorly suited to railguns due to its gimped powergrid and now it has less powergrid that the cormorant which is shield tanked and has one less turret.
As a blaster boat, it fails quite miserably as it is only able to fit a point and no web, which is absolutely essential for blaster ships.
Other than for suicide ganks, it has to be the worst destroyer out of all.
The coercer has good dps and good damage projection.
The cormorant can snipe at extreme ranges of 100km and shoot down interceptors well.
The thrasher is without a doubt the king of all destroyers being small, fast, mobile, and has alpha strike of artillery. Or the option of fitting an MSE and 200mm autocannons and neut with 400 dps.
If you have flown the catalyst and you will realize its just a paper tiger.
You'll find that you will be absolutely destroyed, unless you are right on-top of your opponent, you better kill him before he flies out of point range, otherwise he will kite you to death or simply running away while laughing at your meagar range and clumsy flying.
But for anyone to think that the catalyst is "fine" brings to question rather or not they have flown it. |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 10:24:00 -
[237] - Quote
there we go! see, didn't that make you feel better rather than casual disregard for our fine host?
Remember folks, CCP are people (or in the case of CCP Guard; Olympian demi-gods who have decided to walk the mortal land). explain our concerns in a friendly and concise manner, its clear that the re-balancing team are reading these threads, even in ytterbium was a bit slower to respond than we'd like.
as for the catalyst however, I'm inclined to agree. there are significant issues with the design in standard play which I feel need to be addressed, while it indeed sports the most mighty of dakka in the destroyer line it has significant issues applying that damage against aware opponents and the low PG escalates this problem. an inability to field a reasonable tank alongside ion blasters a chief concern as often the dps application of the catalyst is made moot by an opponent hitting it with web/scram, while it sill applies damage in fall off its often far from enough to ensure it can deal with its targets, most notably frigates.
all told it shares critical issues with the cormorant, problems in fitting. where the cormorant however has verging on the excessive CPU to throw around against its handicapped powergrid the catalyst is hampered in both areas. often the catalysts only defence if fitting ion blasters as you previously mentioned is a damage control and without a web to ensure close hull hugging or the tank to weather incoming fire its often the case that a cataylst will explode like a wet fart before it can vanquish the foes of the federation Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
526
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 13:47:00 -
[238] - Quote
I think the Coercer is going to be a beast. It will have alot more fits as options. I'll probably go the Medium Beam Laser route and throw a sensor booster into that second mid. It's all about the gank baby.
The Cormorant will also get alot more fitting choices. Most sniper fits will trade out a TC for a TE and be good to go. Also - a double optimal bonus gives Null with Nuetrons around a 7km optimal. A quick DPS graph comparison between a Corm using Null and a standard MSE Thrasher using barrage shows the corm edges out the Thrasher in Damage from 5km - 15km. The difference isn't really enough to justify 2k less EHP for me though- I'd probably still use it as a sniper which is it's forte.
Thrasher - it's the easiest destroyer to get into and the most forgiving to fly. The others have traditionally needed top skilled pilots to shine. Hopefully the easing of the fitting grid on the previous two destroyers alleviates this.
The decision on the Catalyst was a bit dissappointing. I'm not as pessimistic about it as others are on this thread. I personally like the 125mm rail cat. It might not hit as far as the corm but it hits a hell of alot harder. I posted a fit earlier that I like and have used it very successfully. As for a blaster boat - very hard to use outside of a group and in a high TD environment like FW. But:
High: Light Nuetrons II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: F85 Perilpheral Damage System MFS II TE II Rigs: Small Ancillary Current Router x 2 Small Processor Overclocking Unit
364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:08:00 -
[239] - Quote
that's ridiculous that all 3 rigs are needed to fit neutrons the top tier guns it needs more pg and cpu clearly the other destroyers can fit top tier guns so why not the cat? and its a shame that most gal blaster frigs have to hull tank to be effective |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
432
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:27:00 -
[240] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet.
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. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
526
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:11:00 -
[241] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:364 DPS with Null Overheated. 5.4km optimal. 8.5km falloff. Once you get beyond 4km it has much better damage projection then an AC Thrasher. At 10km the Cat is still doing close to 300 DPS. An AC thrasher is only mustering 170. Laughably the Cat should kite an AC Thrasher for as long as possible should they meet. 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.
You can fit a medium pulse coercer with the genolution implant set currently. I've tried one out since the beginning of this thread. They're quite fun. All three rigs need to be used for fitting rigs but I can squeeze three heat sinks and a TE onto it. It does (with a damage implant) 397 DPS out to 19.4km. That is almost an 800 alpha every 2 seconds. I think with the future Coercer I can get rid of some of the fitting rigs, throw on a locus coordinator to replace the TE, and be good to go. The only thing I don't like about it is it's super vulnerable to tracking disruptors. It has no falloff to... ahem... fall back upon. There are also people fitting dual sensor dampners onto the new condors too. Again, no defense.
I like the Rail Cat. 381 DPS at 12km. 261 DPS at 23km. 229 DPS at 42km with Spike. That is without implants. With I can get a bit more range via a locus rig and alot more damage with damage implants. Looking at a future Medium Beam Coercer fit in a similar manner - a little more dps at the same ranges, but again, no falloff. Less versatility. I still think a rail cat is the best cat. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
42
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:36:00 -
[242] - Quote
CobaltSixty wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech 1 frigates have around 10 slots, the rebalanced tech 1 cruisers will have around 14-15 slots, so 13 slots for destroyers is a number we are happy with for the time being. Adding more med / low slots would increase their survivability too much and not fit with the class role. 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 agree with the general assessment in this post.
If there is some magic reason that total slots have to increase between ship sizes in the Tech 1 line of ships then I think it would be better to reduce the highslots to 6 and add some role bonus to ROF or Damage for all the destroyers. The role bonus should be a little less then what we would get for having 8 guns, but still significant. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
195
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 17:34:00 -
[243] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks,
Was busy on other stuff, apologies for the late reply.
We are mostly fine with the changes so far 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/".
That's not really true - looks like they will put the cormorant back at 4 mids thankfully. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
432
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 18:21:00 -
[244] - Quote
One way to limit Catalyst overall dps without completely gimping the ship would be to remove a low slot and give it an extra mid slot (webs). Just sayin'
|
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC The Omega Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 21:12:00 -
[245] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote: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
^^ This |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC The Omega Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 21:24:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
Yes, please leave the cormorant's med slots as they now. Though I wouldnt be changing the high slots for all cormorants at all, probably only number of turret hardpoints, but I want to speak for all starting salvagers, its just crazy for starting players(salvagers) to train right away for noctis, for one point its expensive and too much skilling. But its not just for starting players many people prefer destroyer salvager before noctis coz of its speed and can even salvage maybe faster, I myself fly with noctis only to bigger missions or sites as it is slow. |
Usagi Toshiro
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.24 19:11:00 -
[247] - Quote
+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. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 19:18:00 -
[248] - Quote
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 |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 21:54:00 -
[249] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote: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 What? |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 01:45:00 -
[250] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote: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. |
|
Deacon Abox
Genstar Inc Villore Accords
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 02:15:00 -
[251] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote: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. I think he may be asking, and rightly so, But what about beams? To which I would add, And why should the Catalyst be fitting restricted to blasters and no 150mm rails? And why does the Corm get a 10% optimal bonus on top of already having the best ranged guns? I do not think CCP is doing a good job at all with ship rebalancing. They are restricting/forcing fits upon each ship. What the hell would be wrong with wanting a sniping Catalyst that wouldn't necessitate 3 fitting rigs and still suck because a counterpart has an overblown bonus for that role? Meanwhile a blaster corm is possible and viable.
Oh, as for the tenor of flying dank pockets post just ignore him. There is a whole group of them in Eha that rage uncontrollably in an incoherent and illogical manner. It makes for some fun reading local if you have the inclination to laugh in amazement at the wtf is that about and decide to unblock them. But otherwise they are incomprehensible and best to just block them. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
529
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 02:18:00 -
[252] - Quote
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2001
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 03:41:00 -
[253] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: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.
Yes but it loses a low slot and that's kinda painful. :(
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
529
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 06:33:00 -
[254] - Quote
I've been playing with the Coercer this past month. My fit:
High: Medium Pulse II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Low: HS II x 3 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Overclock x 2
You need the Genolution set to fit it. It's alot of fun. I think the best surprise I've had in it so far was landing in horror on top of a dual rep Vengeance and actually winning. (1k every 2.05 sec with Imperial MF)
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. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
404
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 11:30:00 -
[255] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.
It gets even better actually as you can do this:
[Coercer] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Sensor Booster II
Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Small Energy Collision Accelerator I Small Energy Burst Aerator I
The only drawback is that you need Energy Weapon Rigging V to fit it all without a PG implant (the small laser damage hardwiring goes into the same slot as the engineering hardwiring)
I don't understand people who think the Coercer is getting nerfed. Drakes & Tengus online: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/fbaugust.jpg |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 12:18:00 -
[256] - Quote
**** 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.. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
269
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 16:52:00 -
[257] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I don't understand people who think the Coercer is getting nerfed. It is being nerfed relative to the others as that example you presented is already a fact of life for the Coercer: [Coercer] 2x Heat Sink II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
8x Medium Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency S
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Energy Locus Coordinator I Small Energy Collision Accelerator I
A smidgen faster/nimbler, same smidgen lower lock speed and damage but with better range.
PS: Kind of a ****-fit by the way, if you go gank you need the suitcase to last more than a few volleys from just about anything, better (and simpler/cheaper to shop for ) pulse-gank is: 8x DLPII MWD DCUII, 3x HSII Rigs to taste
Stupid levels of damage .. burns 400mn plate auto Trash to the ground without breaking a sweat.
Still dislike that the hulls are being homogenized, there will be close to no difference other than the race flavoured weaponry which is borked and the rebalance doesn't factor in the insane cost of fielding them with eight guns, the price of which make up the bulk of ISK used. Marauder them all up, 4 guns with 100% damage bonus to save a buttload of ISK in fitting them (maybe add a utility to all) .. then: - Coercer: Slight increase in cap (~12'ish %), remove cap bonus, +7.5% damage/level. No slot change. Who cares if you can't tackle if the lightest tap of the fire button is a super-sonic anvil in the enemy's face?
- Trash: TP or half minnie web range bonus instead of current 5% damage bonus. Depends if the high-slot TP becomes a reality I reckon. Looses 0.75 of a gun that way but gains flavour and tactical options. Auto's + 1/2 web range bonus would be godly in the right hands just as arty + TP (if in utility) would be and is.
- Catalyst: Not much experience with it post blaster changes, but guess a drone or two would fit it nicely.
- Cormorant: As above, little experience. Would gain a smidgen damage from being Maraudered, if given grid to use/abuse rails then it should also have neutron option with little issues, setting it apart from the Catalyst
In short: Make the choice of ship matter for more than what weapon will be used. Make them cheaper to field (read: spam)!
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 15:45:00 -
[258] - Quote
i agree that it is too expensive for younger players to fit 8 guns each gun is over 1mil each plus other mods/rigs t2 mods are a bit expensive now. i would suggest removing some highs add 1 slot to tanking and improve damage bonus to compensate so maybe 6/3/3 6/4/2 6/2/4. 12 slots is fine. maybe allow for a utility slot as-well neuting a frig would help it kill them faster. then if you do proper t2 destroyers you could then move up to 13 slots without adding too much capability past their role |
Recoil IV
Far From Sober
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 20:30:00 -
[259] - Quote
i am so sick and tired of ******* trasher.and sabers.these 2 ships are the most ships i encounter and i dont have with what to kill them solo what so ever.earlier i lost a 600 dps catalyst vs 400mm plate trasher.
so,someone was complaining about catalyst having too much pg and cpu than trasher.absolutly not true.
trasher has so many fitting options (i dont even need have to argue,but if you`re looking for an arguement check eve-kill.net) so besided the fact that has better fitting options,also has quiteee a lot of dps.somehwere around 500 if i`m not mistaken. more tank.do no doubt.more speed,more agility,less signature radius and so on.what is ccp planning on doing about this?
all the fights i had this years vs a trasher/saber all ended up in me loosing a ship.
so,i suggest ccp do something else,if they really want balance,altough i quite doubt about that.
BALANCE = EVERYTHING MUST BE AT THE SAME LEVEL
SO
all slots on each destroyers to be the same / all bonuses to be the same / all guns/missiles damage/rof etc whatever to be the same.that is balance! not the **** that they sell |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
533
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 23:58:00 -
[260] - Quote
You are doing it wrong. A Nuetron blaster cat with one TE, MFS, and a suitcase in the lows will have a very powerful damage envelope compared to an AC Thrasher. Just stay out of the 6km death blossom range as long as possible. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
450
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 01:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
It's really a lost cause because mwd, scram, and "keep at range 6,000" don't work too well. No way for catalyst to control range whatsoever. Thrasher is faster and can overheat mwd, etc... |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
533
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 02:43:00 -
[262] - Quote
You are in a minor plex circling the button. A WT Thrasher enters. Double click on a point PAST the Thrasher and engage your MWD. Launch drone and tell it to engage. At 25km or so I engage the Nuetron blasters. Optimal plus falloff x 2 is around 21km after all. If you can time it right overheat your MWD. Once I see the distance hit the teens I'm going to veer away from the Thrasher by 45 degrees.
Many AC Thrashers are MSE fit. You will be flying at eachother at close to 4km/s. The Thrasher will fishtail after you and if you do the move properly you will skirt the lethal zone. You may be able to reengage the MWD as well as you coast to 10km distance. If the Thrasher is a 400mm plate variant with a web and point it will be a closer fight but you should still prevail. The Nuetron Cat does superb damage at 6-15km and the Thrasher just doesn't.
Lastly, I employ the same tactic with a 125mm rail Cat. You can open up at 35km, shoot every 1.53 seconds, and do over 400 DPS at 13km. |
Cormier One
Rage Innovations Equinox Rising
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 03:13:00 -
[263] - Quote
Recoil IV : BALANCE = EVERYTHING MUST BE AT THE SAME LEVEL
Balance isn't the same as homogenization. Balance is about creating interesting ship designs that do the role that they are designed for well. To make all current destroyers anti-frigate rubbish where the only difference is what you could put on it is a poor effort in my opinion.
The bonuses the hulls get should be based exactly on the role they intend to fill. At this point a lot of the ships you see in pvp tend to be cookie cutter fits and usually the same hull type e.g. Thrashers when it comes to destroyers.
Why?, because for every class of ship there is usually one stand out (e.g. Thrasher). Be it the combination of weapons, slots, utility (omni-fit), game mechanics, background fluff etc. Even down to the combination of fighting tactics, which for some races seems a very bizarre combination...e.g. blasters, armor tanking and no speed. I mean really how do you expect this guy to close to short range when he's a pillbox. On the opposite end is a few of the minmatar ships. Fast, agile and massive falloff on their weapons, all of this good on it's own. But you then add damage and tracking bonuses, mods with more tracking / sig radius bonus (ie TP), no cap usage and suddenly shooting outside optimal doesn't matter as much when it comes to damage projection.
So that is where I see the balancing issues. The hulls themselves, even the coercers 1 mid slot, aren't so much the issue as the bonuses and the racial philosophies / module + bonus combinations. Both of which I know would be much harder to align than the hulls themselves. I mean the Amarr and Minmatar have been fighting for a while, but there is still no Amarr weaponry designed that allows them to target a Minmatar hulls weakest resists, so they fit Minmatar guns on their hulls to be able to swap ammo types. Caldari have great ECM, so why no ECCM bonus on a Gallante ship?, or why can some cruisers outpace frigates or destroyers for speed?
So if you want to make destroyers good for certain rolls do so. If you want me to be the passive armor tanked pillbox, then give me resist bonuses and maybe web / scram bonuses, possibly a range bonus but no damage bonus or even a combination of a bonus and a fixed negative modifier (oh no, sacrilege ). Make the hull fit the role and not a hull for all occasions. Fitting hulls for multi-role isn't supposed to be easy, if it was we would be in WoW not EvE.
Those are the sorts of things I think should be looked at more so than making all hulls exactly the same, it's also an opinion and we all know opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. Some are just nicer to look at..like mine |
Lili Lu
366
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:23:00 -
[264] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:**** 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.. Yep. This is the real problem. It's one thing to make races have a predilection for certain roles. It's another thing to force fitting choices and deny similar bonuses such that other races cannot even use a combat tactic, here that being sniping. On top of that the tanking bonuses (and new op mods) and range bonuses that Caldari get can be applied successfully to short range weapon systems. A blaster Corm is not a joke. A sniper Catalyst, Thrasher, or Coercer is however a sad joke in comparison to a sniper Corm. Well maybe not always the Thrasher as the alpha might be enough situationally.
CCP, 10% range bonuses on top of the longest range weapon systems is nuts. This is part of why you have usage disparities and/or role exclusion. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:48:00 -
[265] - Quote
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
To me it seems the destroyers could easily benefit from a 20% increase in scan resolution putting them about even with the scan resolution on combat frigates (Merlin, Rifter, Incursus and Punisher)
With much less mobility and a really poor tank this buff will not get destroyers into a competition with the other frigates or new Interceptor frigates Atron, Condor etc in this area
Pinky
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
452
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:57:00 -
[266] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote: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. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
533
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 17:32:00 -
[267] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote: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. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
199
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 19:13:00 -
[268] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote: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.
You'll also notice that is an arty thrasher. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
453
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 20:10:00 -
[269] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: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. Hey man, I said I was giving it a shot! Will report what I learn soon enough. Killed a completely untanked arty Thrasher today with the 125mm rail cat. Still under evaluation.
In this first test of 125mm Cat, he didn't burn at me at 4k, he burned away. Was barely able to keep enough dps on him before he popped due to no tank. If he had a shield extender instead of an unused web the outcome would have been different. But that's fine. Will keep evaluating. I should be able to out range him and at least run him off in the future, but I was trying strafing technique and using antimatter. |
Recoil IV
Far From Sober
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 23:19:00 -
[270] - Quote
also,a proven fact.trashers are waaay more powerfull than sabres.how is that possible? |
|
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
|
|
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! -áGoin' 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 -áT2 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. |
|
Sanka Cofie
The Yaar Offices of Pointe Webb and Podemall
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 05:10:00 -
[331] - Quote
The Coercer is fine the way it is.
>> Does not need 2nd midslot. >>> Should not lose 4th low.
Lets be honest, all of those destroyer hulls are glass cannons. Even without the warp disruptor you can kill shield tanks before they align out, and if you're going to lose the fight it's going to be over quickly anyway.
Gùä The Views or Opinions Expressed Above Are My Own And Do Not Reflect the Views or Opinions of My Corporation, My-áAlliance, or My Internet Service Provider. Gùä But They Should, Because I Am Usually Right. Gùä I Am Quitting The Forums and Giving Away All My ISK, Send me 10M ISK In Game And I Will Send You All My ISK!Gùä |
Atreides 47
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON MASQUERADE.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 10:21:00 -
[332] - Quote
How dare you to even think of mounting rockets on THRASHER ? I don't know which ******* idiot pushed that idea, but he can shoot his head with any projectile cannon. Long live to Fighters ! |
Heribeck Weathers
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:46:00 -
[333] - Quote
Atreides 47 wrote:How dare you to even think of mounting rockets on THRASHER ? I don't know which ******* idiot pushed that idea, but he can shoot his head with any projectile cannon. Rookies after that damnable winter patch must learn rockets instead of learning projectiles, because Destroyers are the only good starting combat ships.
lol well mimatar are getting a "new" rocket dessy, but i dotn think the thrasher is going to become the rocket king of the sky instead |
Atreides 47
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON MASQUERADE.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 19:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:lol well mimatar are getting a "new" rocket dessy, but i dotn think the thrasher is going to become the rocket king of the sky instead
The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action. Long live to Fighters ! |
ColdCutz
Pwny Nation
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 17:48:00 -
[335] - Quote
Please do away with the single drone on the Catalyst and give it more powergrid. Fiddling around with the drone interface while in a fight is not worth one drone, and the second line of Amarr and Gallente destroyers will have drones covered. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
772
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 17:52:00 -
[336] - Quote
The cormorant absolutely does not need to lose a medslot, it'd be better off with less highslots if it really has to have another low. |
Martin0
The Scope Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 18:07:00 -
[337] - Quote
ColdCutz wrote:Please do away with the single drone on the Catalyst and give it more powergrid. Fiddling around with the drone interface while in a fight is not worth one drone, and the second line of Amarr and Gallente destroyers will have drones covered. THIS. The catalyst have lots of fitting problems. And increase autocannos pg usage |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 18:36:00 -
[338] - Quote
indeed the only ship designed not too use the top tier guns how bizarre is that? |
Kannteir
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 06:47:00 -
[339] - Quote
Why has CCP not made destroyers like Tier 3 Battlecruisers? Just give them 4 turrent/lanucher slots and 100% damage bonus on their weapons? You wouldn't be able to fit the dps to kill a cruiser, but frigates couldn't solo you anymore. Not to mention you could use them for those awkward low level 3 missions. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
201
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 09:41:00 -
[340] - Quote
I would definately redistribute 1 hi-slot for an additional med/low slot depending on the racial flavour... The destroyers do have a good amount of dps and they are supposed to be fragile - but unless you can get propulsion, tackle and a plateextender on them they will explode if anything sneeze in their direction...
If you insist on the current slot layout perhaps an additional amount of shield/armor/structure hitpoints - these ships rarely have slots with resistance modules anyway... |
|
Iokasti palaiologou
DAMSEL In Duress
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 14:22:00 -
[341] - Quote
I was fortunate to see some of that in person by the amazing presentations of CCP Tallest and CCP Guard at the eve-dust summerfest in Greece with a unique presentation with pictures of the new Caldari Destroyer that made us drool.
|
Oreb Wing
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 21:05:00 -
[342] - Quote
Selnix wrote:Oki Riverson wrote: Also could we get some faction destroyers pls? I mean the models ARE already there... ^_^ This please!
Perhaps replacing existing ship bonuses with a 25% fitting bonus to cpu&pg of weapons, keeping the existing layout (pre-winter changes), but dropping 2 highs down to racial specific slots. That would make one helluva ship. |
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:07:00 -
[343] - Quote
I think destroyers could use some love in general, they aren't necesarily always terribad, but they are frequently underwhelming
try this:
COERCER:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 4 L Fittings: 90 PWG (+15), 175 CPU (+15) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 950 (+90) / 800 (+70) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6 Sensor strength: 10 Radar Signature radius: 62
CORMORANT:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 2 L (+1) Turrets 8 (+1) Fittings: 70 PWG (+15), 225 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 950 (+90) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7 Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric Signature radius: 65 (-3)
CATALYST:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L Fittings: 75 PWG (+015), 175 CPU (+ 5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 850 (+ 47) / 900 (+118) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric Signature radius: 68 (+3)
THRASHER:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L (+ 1) Fittings: 70 PWG, 175 CPU (+ 5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 850 (+ 47) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6 Sensor strength: 9 Ladar Signature radius: 56
Its only a few small changes and an extra slot and the PWG and CPU numbers are probably ned more fine tuned, but i think this setup will give a better performance overall, especially if small artillary got a slight reduction in fitting as well |
Mildew Wolf
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:42:00 -
[344] - Quote
3 mid corm? ouch |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
133
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:45:00 -
[345] - Quote
Furry Commander wrote:I think destroyers could use some love in general, they aren't necesarily always terribad, but they are frequently underwhelming
try this:
COERCER:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 4 L Fittings: 90 PWG (+15), 175 CPU (+15) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 950 (+90) / 800 (+70) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6 Sensor strength: 10 Radar Signature radius: 62
CORMORANT:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 2 L (+1) Turrets 8 (+1) Fittings: 70 PWG (+15), 225 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 950 (+90) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7 Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric Signature radius: 65 (-3)
CATALYST:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L Fittings: 75 PWG (+015), 175 CPU (+ 5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 850 (+ 47) / 900 (+118) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric Signature radius: 68 (+3)
THRASHER:
Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 3 L (+ 1) Fittings: 70 PWG, 175 CPU (+ 5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 850 (+ 47) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6 Sensor strength: 9 Ladar Signature radius: 56
Its only a few small changes and an extra slot and the PWG and CPU numbers are probably ned more fine tuned, but i think this setup will give a better performance overall, especially if small artillary got a slight reduction in fitting as well
That now is better and makes more sense. |
ColdCutz
Pwny Nation
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:00:00 -
[346] - Quote
Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:08:00 -
[347] - Quote
After testing the "no-changes Catalyst", I stand by my previous statement. Add some 10-20 PG and 5 CPU and remove 2 turret hardpoints.
Edit: Oh, and screw the drone. The hassle to deploy it is not worth the dps it adds. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1143
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:46:00 -
[348] - Quote
ColdCutz wrote:Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests.
Been busy designing the new ore frigate and destroyers. We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot. The Catalyst and Cormorant changes are still quite up in the air. We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet.
We'll definitely have some iteration time on destroyers, this class is tricky to balance, especially with the new hulls coming out. |
|
Satracz
Meteoric Security Supply Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:58:00 -
[349] - Quote
If you not give the Cormorant an extra medslot ,better give it the old layout back with 1 Low. The Base Lockrange is crapy in my eyes,its need an Sensorbooster if the 150 Rails are fitted... But i would like it if you Guys increase the Lockrange about 6km + more,if it is an option the 3/2 Slots are OK too... Ah...and a bit more speed would be nice...only a little |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
361
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:02:00 -
[350] - Quote
Four meds for the Cormorant, definitely.
(More room for tracking disruptors, heh) |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:14:00 -
[351] - Quote
Cormorant definately would be a good destroyer with 4 meds and 2 lows - just remove the 8th hi-slot... It might give some grey areas that you will have to think through but it will make the cormorant a nice destroyer. But yes then if you absolitely have to choose I think the double lowslot layout would give the most flexible/interesting fitting possibilities? |
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:33:00 -
[352] - Quote
After playing around with the Coercer and Cormorant on Duality i have to say that i do like the new Coercer.
Fitting the Small Focused Pulse Lasers (the old Medium Pulses) is easy enough to make up for the loss of the low. I can use my current kite fit with FPL instead of DLP without losing anything (well, i lose some tracking, but haven't found this to be a problem), but get a long point on top of it. I'm sure people will find exciting new fits, too, when they play around with it.
However i fear the Catalyst gets overshadowed by the new Coercer. The rail version loses the main advantage over Scorch Pulse Coercer: the second mid as Coercer now can do the same. Blaster Catalyst just isn't as good as it may look on paper.
I really feel the Catalyst needs some rethinking.
I'm not sold yet on the Cormorant either. I only tested the 100k sniping Cormorant which actually works still very good/even better than before. It has more DPS and enough lock range if you don't fit an MWD but you are of course highly dependent on bookmarks and good warp-ins. MWD fit should work too though with some loss in range.
Still, i think the Corm loses a lot of uniqueness and it isn't bad now really. If you really think it needs a buff i'd day you should find another way to buff it without touching the medslots. |
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:24:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:ColdCutz wrote:Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests. Been busy designing the new ore frigate and destroyers. We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot. The Catalyst and Cormorant changes are still quite up in the air. We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet. We'll definitely have some iteration time on destroyers, this class is tricky to balance, especially with the new hulls coming out.
I understand that adding slots for the sake of adding them is misguided, but there is good justification for it in the case. all of the new frigates have 6 or more combined lows/mids. all of them. Having 6 on a destroyer seems fair and balanced to me and with a slight boost to CPU and PWG (considering the other modifications you are making) and possibly a wee bit more HP i think that would finally stabalize them in comparison to the frigates and cruisers as you are developing them now.
|
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:18:00 -
[354] - Quote
The new coercer makes an excellent sniper boat, with the ability to fit a full rack of small focused beams, and a t2 mwd (w/ an RCU II) it can do about 100 dps at 44km w/gleam. Fitting a SeBo to help target out to that range, (or using rigs which i haven't tried yet) making them good support for a small frig/dessie gang that has enough brawlers to keep points, and take fire. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:36:00 -
[355] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:The new coercer makes an excellent sniper boat, with the ability to fit a full rack of small focused beams, and a t2 mwd (w/ an RCU II) it can do about 100 dps at 44km w/gleam. Fitting a SeBo to help target out to that range, (or using rigs which i haven't tried yet) making them good support for a small frig/dessie gang that has enough brawlers to keep points, and take fire. Single T1 rig gives you 46km targeting range. You mean with Aurora, surely
Current Coercer gets 150+ dps at 40km with Fourier TE, 2xHSII and a T2 suitcase. Increase that to 170+ by swapping luggage for another HSII.
Revision means it is worse off in all conceivable configurations, aka. it is being nerfed.
Up the grid and base stats as planned but don't destroy the ship by moving the slot .. only alternative is to move a high to the mids as the decrease in damage is not nearly as harsh as the blanket nerfage the loss of a low entails.
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:43:00 -
[356] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:The new coercer makes an excellent sniper boat, with the ability to fit a full rack of small focused beams, and a t2 mwd (w/ an RCU II) it can do about 100 dps at 44km w/gleam. Fitting a SeBo to help target out to that range, (or using rigs which i haven't tried yet) making them good support for a small frig/dessie gang that has enough brawlers to keep points, and take fire.
I was getting 225 DPS at 53km with a 60km lock range. The thing works and it's nasty. I think the first thing I killed as a new kitey Kestrel using light missiles. The response he posted in local was 'WTF' I was pushing 391 dps at 14km. The ability to switch ammo on the fly I can't praise enough.
The Pulse Coercer was also nice. I kept forgetting I had a point. I was doing about 350 DPS at 19km with 5k EHP. 491 DPS with Conflag. 'Nuff Said.
The Cormorant surprised me. Someone had a MASB version that was particularly hard to kill. For my own gank sniper fit I was able to fit 150s, a light missile launcher, MWD, two SB, and two MFS II. I was doing around 350 DPS at 23km. I could lock out to 109km and spike would give me 83km optimal. 167 DPS.
The rail Catalyst is comparable to the Beam Coercer. It does however lose out on the ammo flexibility front. I'll sum up by saying the Thrasher has some real competition here. |
Songbird
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:09:00 -
[357] - Quote
you need to make tier 2 destroyers with cruiser weapons :) |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:34:00 -
[358] - Quote
My Coercer fit has been buffed in every way.
8x Medium Pulse (Small Focused?) 1x MWD 2x Heatsink, 1x TE, 1x Nano
2x locus 1x ANCR
200/200 CPU and 108.72/113.44 grid
New fit drops the nano but can fit without one of the ANCR and thus can have a polycarbon instead (or other fun rig). It also gains 8 CPU, which is perfect for a sensor booster for faster wtfbbq.
An alternative fit is to put a +CPU rig in on in place of an ANCR and maybe drop to a named TE, thus allowing a warp scrambler in the extra mid. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
614
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:58:00 -
[359] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
The Pulse Coercer was also nice. I kept forgetting I had a point.
I think we are seeing that although people would often complain about the lack of the midslot due to not having a point, few people will fit a point on it anyway. The large amount of small gun damage often makes it unnecessary.
I never used a tracking computer before but I might use one for this new destroyer. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 03:31:00 -
[360] - Quote
From what I have seen on the test server, the new coercer is a mean little ship |
|
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:41:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet. Like we've been saying, drop the high for a low; with only 7 Turret hardpoints, that 8th high isn't all that useful in the first place, and Caladri don't rely as much on utility highs. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:39:00 -
[362] - Quote
I agree with the cormie loosing its 8th high for a 4th mid so its 7 4 2 the catalyst is in dire need for more PG 75 with skills is just not enough to fit it properly also the 1 drone it gets is weird |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
576
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:56:00 -
[363] - Quote
I was pleasantly surprised by the corm. It was much easier to fit. I could squeeze a light launcher next to a rack of 150mm rails. I also had alot more gank potential. The ship with two MFS pushes over 300 DPS to 23km. |
Lord Distortion
20th Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:23:00 -
[364] - Quote
As a side note, The other Role destroyers have been fitting is new player easyfit, of which the thrasher is truly king. ( as touched upon earlier in the thread http://i.imgur.com/dKipM.jpg )
You can even create a basic cheapo pvp thrasher fit within 24hours on a new account? shield hesitance rigs & medium shield extender, auto cannons, ab, scram, damage & tracking mods http://www.freewebs.com/szdefault/noskillthrasher.jpg ( I used to do this for lols see whom was daft enough to die. The payoff for skilling & isking up for high level fits on some destoryers seems a gimmik compared to what you can do with other vessels at such sp. )
Trying brawler fits with a destroyer has always been a lost cause, although I did have fun with a small sucker bubble solo camps with very mixed results :s A platedblastercatalyst with scram/web seems to shock numpties in docking games :D ( T2 small hybrid weapons often cost more than medium on the market, making mobile dps catalysts & cormorants silly. just a practicality note )
Good to see many sensible changes in the pipeline, even if theyGÇÖre years late. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:08:00 -
[365] - Quote
The 3 mids on cormorant is not an issue, you can just replace a tracking comp with a tracking enhancer, which would actually improve the fit significantly. And having more lows opens more possibilities for non-sniper fits. So it's a good change in every aspect. |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:16:00 -
[366] - Quote
I don't agree with the Cormorant tweak... It's a Caldari Ship and is supposed to have more Mids. Yeah it sux to only have 1 Low, but would suck waaay more to Lose a Mid! Keep the Mid and Increase the PG. Seriously... do you guys even theory craft this stuff and test it yourselves? The prior buff was the biggest help to destroyers by far... don't destroy the Cormy! eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 14:59:00 -
[367] - Quote
Ok I am coming round to the 125mm cat.
I tried a 400m plate 75mm version thinking the EHP would be better but still found myself being kited under tracking disruption or unable to hit close range frigs even with javelin.
125mm, DCU cat seems to be where it is at, it at least projects damage well enough even under optimal range TD. DonGÇÖt let them get close though.
I still need to fit an ACR rig even though I have no plate as such and do feel the cat deserves a little extra powergrid. I also struggle to fit a T2 disrupter despite not being overly ambitious in module choices.
It needs to be made clear that the blaster cat is not really viable in real PVP unless you like shooting miners though. Maybe just maybe if the FW beacon location change goes through and you can just sit on the warp in with a scram and a AB for range control then the dps will win you some fights before they pull range. You will then need the Drone to kill any NPCGÇÖs as you will have very little DPS projection.
I killed two hookbills in succession in this which is a bit of a record for me. Not really happy with all the meta mods due to CPU.
[Catalyst, 125mm Rail Cat] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Internal Force Field Array I Fourier Transform Tracking Program
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Fleeting Warp Disruptor I
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Ancillary Current Router I
Warrior SW-300 x1
|
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:55:00 -
[368] - Quote
I kinda like the Corm layout the way it is. I've learned to live with 1 low for a long time now. Give her some more speed or agility or sumpthin'. Wooosh! Zoooom! Kapow!
....yeah. GÖ¬ They'll always be bloodclaws to me GÖ½ |
Malice Redeemer
Redeemer Group Joint Venture Conglomerate
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:51:00 -
[369] - Quote
lordy, its redonk that so much of the winter "balancing" so far is just make them all like the minmatar ship. |
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate Wormhole Holders
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:57:00 -
[370] - Quote
With the total number of slots and fitting resources available destroyers make for an excellent class of utiliy ships which was shown in the AT9 with a number of ECM Cormorants fieled.
Just imagine a logi/tracking link/target painter ship on such platform. Throw in a surviveability bonus in the lines of "-10% to the ship's signature per level" and it would be an interesting toy to complement those "new" tier 3 Battlecruisers.
There's whole field of unused opportunities aprat from the 8 turret doctrine. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:48:00 -
[371] - Quote
i think the thrasher optimal range bonus does pin it to arties which doesn't seem very minmatar surely it should be a smaller autocannon bonus caldari are normally the snipers |
Sethimothy
Red Star Trading Corporation Redrum Fleet
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:37:00 -
[372] - Quote
I want to make sure I'm understanding this right. How much powergrid is the Catalyst losing? Or is it not that it's losing powergrid, but that other ships are gaining? Mine is so tightly fit as it is... |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:43:00 -
[373] - Quote
The catalyst isn't changing. The Coercer, however, is making out like a bandit. Not only is it getting more pg and CPU, but it's largest tier weapons are becoming much easier to fit. The corn is also aging some PG but losing some CPU. As a mid is moving to a low it actually works pretty well. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:59:00 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:ColdCutz wrote:Hi CCP Ytterbium. Whatcha thinkin' about? Yay or Nay? Testing out the extra slots on the dev servers? It's great to be able to hash these things out ahead of time on the feedback threads - just curious what your thoughts are on the slots and weapons hardpoint requests. Been busy designing the new ore frigate and destroyers. We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot. The Catalyst and Cormorant changes are still quite up in the air. We don't want to add extra slots for the sake of it though, so we'll either keep the current Cormorant layout or give it back it fourth medium slot back at the expense of the low, not decided yet. We'll definitely have some iteration time on destroyers, this class is tricky to balance, especially with the new hulls coming out.
Whatever your intentions. You DID NERF the Cormorant and If you want to "ballance" destroyers. You may want look more closely @ the Coercer.
Cormorant: 7 High slots (6 turret harpoints), 4 mid slots, 2 Low slots. Damage modules would make up for anything loss from removing 1 turret hard point. Keep everything else the same.
Coercer: slot arrangment is fine, but do NOT increase it's cpu and power grid. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:[quote=CCP Ytterbium]
Whatever your intentions. You DID NERF the Cormorant and If you want to "ballance" destroyers. You may want look more closely @ the Coercer.
Cormorant: 7 High slots (6 turret harpoints), 4 mid slots, 2 Low slots. Damage modules would make up for anything loss from removing 1 turret hard point. Keep everything else the same.
Coercer: slot arrangment is fine, but do NOT increase it's cpu and power grid.
Shhhhhhhh... The Thrasher's era is over. It just doesn't realize it yet. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:37:00 -
[376] - Quote
So is the 3 mid cormorant thing definite at this point? Because it's really bad. Sensible alternative is dropping the high for a low, or giving it 8 guns and leaving the slots. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
307
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:18:00 -
[377] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We definitely like the Coercer second medium slot... If your minds are truly made up, then please remove a high and add a low. Seems dubious to have exact same layout as the Gallente and the slowness of the Coercer require that fourth low to add speed/tank/damage as compensation. |
Suki Kasumi
Deninard Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:31:00 -
[378] - Quote
Toterra wrote:Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers.
I concur. +1 |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
57
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:02:00 -
[379] - Quote
Suki Kasumi wrote:Toterra wrote:Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers. I concur. +1
well maybe 4.5 AU makes more sense and they need to drop the sig rad below 60 and increase their speed a fair bit |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:56:00 -
[380] - Quote
Suki Kasumi wrote:Toterra wrote:Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers. I concur. +1
Supported! I didn't notice that either. |
|
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:09:00 -
[381] - Quote
Again, Catalyst should lose that optimal bonus and gain a falloff one. We want to go all guns blaz(t)ing. |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 09:54:00 -
[382] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium,
I just noticed that the ship mass values were not listed in your first post. Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): xxxx / xxxx / -missing value- / xxxx
I guess they are unchanged too?
Regards, Sparks |
Snow Iskold
Arturis Coalition TERRA FIRMA.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:02:00 -
[383] - Quote
Guess What! |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
637
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:21:00 -
[384] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, I'm dying to know what you're doing to the cat. Tell us now! |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1307
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:20:00 -
[385] - Quote
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.
|
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2306
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:23:00 -
[386] - Quote
Hum. Interesting. :) Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
220
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:29:00 -
[387] - Quote
I like it Ideas for Dorne Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 9/21/12 |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:34:00 -
[388] - Quote
Thanks for the reply. |
Lili Lu
515
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:40:00 -
[389] - Quote
Well this is better. I still think you have to stop giving 10% optimal bonuses on guns with already the longest optimal. So, I think you should have reduced the optimal on the Corm to 7.5 or 5 percent per level.
The Catalyst will still not excite me, but blaster combat in general is not my thing. At least the new revision will present combat role options for a Gallente pilot and not be so gimped in fittings as compared to the others. And, blasters will still sorta blow with only two mids, and thus only one scram. But the new mass does mean that the Catalyst will have an incentive to fit speed mods and not just damage mods in the lows so that it stands a chance to hold down something long enough to kill it, even if that target has a decent tank and a web.
So overall an improvement. I don't fly blaster boats much. But I suppose this change may make the blaster catalyst more viable. Thanks.
edti - thanks for getting rid of the drone. one drone on any ship is more of a pita than it's worth. Two drones are worth messing with though. So please in the future if you are going to give a small dronebay to anything make it two lights at least. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:41:00 -
[390] - Quote
The catalyst needs three mids if its supposed to use blasters...
The only reason 2 mids will work on a Coercer is because of lolscorch. |
|
Lili Lu
515
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:47:00 -
[391] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:The catalyst needs three mids if its supposed to use blasters...
The only reason 2 mids will work on a Coercer is because of lolscorch. Maybe. It will need some testing to know. Because the mass reduction and resulting mwd gain will make this thing a rather zippy one winged destroyer i suspect. At least though now it will be able to fit 150s and snipe as an alternate fitting. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
637
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:17:00 -
[392] - Quote
Thank you very much CCP Yterrbium!
Nuetron Blaster with a Genolution Implant Set: (I have a few of these saved as I like them so much)
High: Nuetron Blaster II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: DC II TE II x 2 Rigs: Hybrid Collision Hybrid Burst
Null: 342 - 359 DPS depending on implants. 6.1km + 10.8km. Optimal + Falloff x 2 = 27km. Faction AM: 429 - 451 DPS. 2.2km + 7.7km Void: 479 - 503 DPS. 3.3km + 3.8km
OR (if you want more DPS)
New Lows: TE II MFS II Internal Force Field Array
Null: 410 - 430 DPS. 5.4km + 8.5km Faction AM: 514 - 540 DPS. 1.9km + 6.1km Void: 574 - 602 DPS. 2.9k + 3.1km
You can fit 150s on the Catalyst buy I prefer to pimp out the DPS on the 125s that no longer need fitting help AND actually get a point on the thing. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
899
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:02:00 -
[393] - Quote
Fitting space at the expense of the dronebay is fine, a single light drone is essentiallly worthless anyway so this represents a pretty straightforward buff.
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.
There's such a thing as long ranged catalyst setups (I mean ones that people actually, unironicly, fly on TQ)?
Either way, as things stand the optimal and falloff bonuses fit poorly together - whichever weapon type you focus on, you will effectively have a 'wasted' bonus since increases to falloff on rails and optimal on blasters are of little use. All the other three destroyers can use their three bonuses effectively together, why must the Catalyst be hamstrung in this way? 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. |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:08:00 -
[394] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- 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
Can someone enlighten me on just what the mass difference will do if it keeps t he same effective agility? |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:35:00 -
[395] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- 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
Can someone enlighten me on just what the mass difference will do if it keeps t he same effective agility?
Higher top speed I believe.
Speed change is nice; if that extra 200m/s for the cat is correct then this brings them nicely up the new cruiser speeds and with an overdrive/nano will be around assault ship Microwarpdrive speeds
Nice fittings change son the Cat, I like the flexibility of the current bonuses with those fittings.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:36:00 -
[396] - Quote
This is christmas before christmas. The new catalyst will be awesome. BTW, there is some catalyst with railguns on TQ, and I even think they are more efective than blaster catalyst for everything else than highsec suicide gank.
Though the mass reduction will make them way faster with MWD/AB, and that was really needed, because cruiser will be as fast as them otherwise.
PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo. |
The VC's
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:56:00 -
[397] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:There's such a thing as long ranged catalyst setups (I mean ones that people actually, unironicly, fly on TQ)?
Seriously mate, give the 125mm Rail Cat a go.
Edit. the 150mm version is gonna suprise a few people too.. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
310
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:50:00 -
[398] - Quote
The VC's wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:There's such a thing as long ranged catalyst setups (I mean ones that people actually, unironicly, fly on TQ)? Seriously mate, give the 125mm Rail Cat a go. Edit. the 150mm version is gonna suprise a few people too.. With that low a mass they are going to be downright OP .. what is supposed to catch them, one will literally have to start at point blank range to have a chance .. base speed with just MWD is in excess of 2k/s which is more than the current Thrash
Why handle the others with a feather touch and then slap the Cata with the whole damn goose?
Yes, destroyers will be close to the speeds that can be achieved by the revised cruisers, so what? If one chooses to bring a knife to a gun fight one has it bloody well coming .. if you want to run circles around something buy a damn frig! Destroyers are not meant to be able to chase down their prey (frigates), the insane sphere of death they can all produce testifies to this. They are specialized ships and should die horribly if a heavier ship arrives unless they bolt ...
To Ytterbium: Ignore the calls from the Nano-age Reminiscence Country Club and balance them according their intended use .. against frigates and other destroyers. Do not make the mistake of including cruisers+ in the deliberations.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
56
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:34:00 -
[399] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:The VC's wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:There's such a thing as long ranged catalyst setups (I mean ones that people actually, unironicly, fly on TQ)? Seriously mate, give the 125mm Rail Cat a go. Edit. the 150mm version is gonna suprise a few people too.. With that low a mass they are going to be downright OP .. what is supposed to catch them, one will literally have to start at point blank range to have a chance .. base speed with just MWD is in excess of 2k/s which is more than the current Thrash Why handle the others with a feather touch and then slap the Cata with the whole damn goose? Yes, destroyers will be close to the speeds that can be achieved by the revised cruisers, so what? If one chooses to bring a knife to a gun fight one has it bloody well coming .. if you want to run circles around something buy a damn frig! Destroyers are not meant to be able to chase down their prey (frigates), the insane sphere of death they can all produce testifies to this. They are specialized ships and should die horribly if a heavier ship arrives unless they bolt ... To Ytterbium: Ignore the calls from the Nano-age Reminiscence Country Club and balance them according their intended use .. against frigates and other destroyers. Do not make the mistake of including cruisers+ in the deliberations.
no, just give it a try. cat still has only two mids. for once, let the blaster boat be the fastest one and lets see how this turns out. i mean there is still the test phase on buckingham (btw, whats the eta on this, ccp? ).
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
310
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:43:00 -
[400] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:no, just give it a try. cat still has only two mids. for once, let the blaster boat be the fastest one and lets see how this turns out. i mean there is still the test phase on buckingham (btw, whats the eta on this, ccp? ). Certainly, just doubt you'll see many blaster fits when it has a speed surplus high enough to kite almost everything using rails
|
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
57
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:31:00 -
[401] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:no, just give it a try. cat still has only two mids. for once, let the blaster boat be the fastest one and lets see how this turns out. i mean there is still the test phase on buckingham (btw, whats the eta on this, ccp? ). Certainly, just doubt you'll see many blaster fits when it has a speed surplus high enough to kite almost everything using rails
you mean the one which will die horribly to any of the new dessies and any speedy non t1 frig with a web? crucifier, rocket breacher and maybe slasher will also have an easy time shutting a rail cat downor go under the guns and eating it up one by one. don't get me wrong. there is much potential for an awesome ship, but there are also some good counters in the dessy and frig realm, so i am not overly concerned.
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 12:50:00 -
[402] - Quote
We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.
Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
643
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:01:00 -
[403] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:no, just give it a try. cat still has only two mids. for once, let the blaster boat be the fastest one and lets see how this turns out. i mean there is still the test phase on buckingham (btw, whats the eta on this, ccp? ). Certainly, just doubt you'll see many blaster fits when it has a speed surplus high enough to kite almost everything using rails you mean the one which will die horribly to any of the new dessies and any speedy non t1 frig with a web? crucifier, rocket breacher and maybe slasher will also have an easy time shutting a rail cat downor go under the guns and eating it up one by one. don't get me wrong. there is much potential for an awesome ship, but there are also some good counters in the dessy and frig realm, so i am not overly concerned.
One does not kite in a rail Catalyst. One charges. Pick a point past the target and double click it. Overheat your MWD at the last moment. It is much harder to get under a target's guns if you're approaching eachother at 6km/s then if you're 4km/s frigate is chasing a 2km/s target. Also - if you are fighting a ship famous for TD - load a longer range ammo. Faction lead does 289 DPS at 23 km with 14km falloff. Lastly, 125mm rail cat shoots every 1.53 seconds. The impetus is on the frigate to get under the guns rather then in the destroyer to kill it before you get there. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:13:00 -
[404] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.
Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other.
Coercer will be king. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
899
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:40:00 -
[405] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo.
The role bonus only gives 3.5km extra falloff to a Catalyst with 150mm rails, and the benefit of optimal bonuses to blasters is typically measured in metres rather than kilometres. These are marginal benefits, and to all practical purposes the hull will always be effectively losing a bonus except in one-in-a-thousand fringe cases.
None of the other three existing destroyer hulls are hamstrung in this way and there's no reason why the Catalyst should be. 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. |
Lavitakus Bromier
The Scope Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:43:00 -
[406] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Major Killz wrote:We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.
Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other. Coercer will be king.
+1 |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:16:00 -
[407] - Quote
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Major Killz wrote:We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.
Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other. Coercer will be king. +1
Kinda like a Slicer > Harpy, right? Yes indeed.
Don't get me wrong. I've flown and been in love with Coercer's since early 2008, but I'm not delusional. I've been defeated in a Coercer by some who know how to exploit a Coercer's weaknesses and I've done so myself to others.
Now! In null (0.0) there will be r3t@rds esploded to them like they are now but more so. In factional warfare, because of the widespread use of tracking disruptors; a Coercer losses it's effectiveness and I only use a Coercer almost exclusively against large groups of frigates.
With a rail-Harpy or art-Jaguar I have no issues. I just switch to long range ammunition and watch them try to bring my range down from 70,000m (70km). Same can be said with art-Thrasher and rail-Cormorant as they are now. All of the aforementioned use @tleast 1 stasis webifier.
- Boss mode erry day = / Always adapting to the eviroment like a BEAST = / |
The VC's
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:18:00 -
[408] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:One does not kite in a rail Catalyst. One charges.
+1
It's a strafer, not a kiter. A long point and good falloff means you keep your tackle and damage while slingshoting around.
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:41:00 -
[409] - Quote
Do not underestimate the Beam Coercer. It will be able to lock and hit out to 60km. It has instant ammo swap ability and it's tracking is roughly 30% better then the other rail and artillery platforms. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:41:00 -
[410] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo. The role bonus only gives 3.5km extra falloff to a Catalyst with 150mm rails, and the benefit of optimal bonuses to blasters is typically measured in metres rather than kilometres. These are marginal benefits, and to all practical purposes the hull will always be effectively losing a bonus except in one-in-a-thousand fringe cases. None of the other three existing destroyer hulls are hamstrung in this way and there's no reason why the Catalyst should be.
One TE and the falloff for that 150mm II is 14.6 km. The falloff for an unbonused 150 is 7.5km or 9.875km with a TE. 15.3km optimal + 14.6 falloff on a small rail for antimatter is more then significant.
As for blasters - TE again for the win. And a blaster cat pimp slaps an AC Thrasher so hard in terms of damage projection it isn't even funny. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
899
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 19:41:00 -
[411] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo. The role bonus only gives 3.5km extra falloff to a Catalyst with 150mm rails, and the benefit of optimal bonuses to blasters is typically measured in metres rather than kilometres. These are marginal benefits, and to all practical purposes the hull will always be effectively losing a bonus except in one-in-a-thousand fringe cases. None of the other three existing destroyer hulls are hamstrung in this way and there's no reason why the Catalyst should be. One TE and the falloff for that 150mm II is 14.6 km. The falloff for an unbonused 150 is 7.5km or 9.875km with a TE. Or you could use a Cormorant, which isn't hamstrung with split-range bonuses and so all that falloff is still optimal. And which, you know, can fit a tracking enhancer too.
Quote:As for blasters - TE again for the win. And a blaster cat pimp slaps an AC Thrasher so hard in terms of damage projection it isn't even funny. Are you somehow reading into my post that if catalysts had a decent set of non-clashing bonuses they would also be banned from using tracking enhancers? "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. 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. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:43:00 -
[412] - Quote
I'll tell all the tornado pilots fitting arty that they're doing it wrong then. I'll also stop using my Harpy with 9.6km optimal on Null because obviously optimal bonuses don't help blasters at all. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:58:00 -
[413] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Lavitakus Bromier wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Major Killz wrote:We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.
Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other. Coercer will be king. +1 Kinda like a Slicer > Harpy, right? Yes indeed. Don't get me wrong. I've flown and been in love with Coercer's since early 2008, but I'm not delusional. I've been defeated in a Coercer by some who know how to exploit a Coercer's weaknesses and I've done so myself to others. Now! In null (0.0) there will be r3t@rds esploded to them like they are now but more so. In factional warfare, because of the widespread use of tracking disruptors; a Coercer losses it's effectiveness and I only use a Coercer almost exclusively against large groups of frigates. With a rail-Harpy or art-Jaguar I have no issues. I just switch to long range ammunition and watch them try to bring my range down from 70,000m (70km). Same can be said with art-Thrasher and rail-Cormorant as they are now. All of the aforementioned use @tleast 1 stasis webifier. - Boss mode erry day = / Always adapting to the eviroment like a BEAST = /
No kind of like it will kill anything that gets within 20km of it with pulse
And kill anything that comes within 40 with beams.
It will be hilariously powerful.
(The new Caldari dessie will be better though) |
Randy Wray
BLOOM. Bloomswarm
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 22:14:00 -
[414] - Quote
I really dont see the logic behind giving the cormorant a second low, how is it going to benefit from it?
The ship is pretty much built around rails, the rail fitting needs midslots for webs if youre a middle range soloer or sensor boosters and tracking computers if youre long range fit.
Now both a sebo and a TC can be replaced by a lowslot module, but not webs. Dual web rail corm is a very viable fit and as a caldari ship it needs all the mids it can get.
Compare the post-change corm to a thrasher, lets say we fit blasters, a rocket launcher, MSE, scram and mwd in mids(generic lows) The corm will be slower, have worse damage projection, similar dps and similar tank. It would just get slaughtered by a thrasher in the approach since the thrasher can start dealing damage from outside scram range even with EMP, the corm will have to load null to get out to similar range and if it does the thrasher can just go up close and then the corm will have to choose between dealing worse dps up close or losing 5 seconds of damage application to reload close range ammo. This is just against the thrasher, the catalyst will just roflstomp a blaster corm and a post-change coercer would be even worse. A rail fit with 3 mids isnt viable because any frig will just get under your tracking, I know this because even if you web your target 75mm railguns have difficulty tracking a frigate orbiting at 500 |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 23:09:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Oh thank you SO much CCP Ytterbium!! This is an excellent first step toward clearly-defined (and bonused) Gallente ships!
Now, let's apply this same logic across the board and start giving Gallente solely-bonused drone boats (or maybe tank+drones) OR solely-bonused Gunboats and stop all that split dps, split damage garbage. Nobody likes split dps, because the ship can't shine at one thing when it's trying to do two things at once.
Ships like the Myrmidon, having a tank+drone bonus allows is to fit whatever appropriate turret weapon system we need, and this affords us much more flexibility in both fittings and turret-damage application (drone damage is always gonna be Therm or Expl, since Caldari and Amarr drones are broken)...
Great job, though! I'm so excited to see design iteration in this direction! |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:14:00 -
[416] - Quote
Yes beam Coercer All powerfull and p overpowered... I'll leave that notion to those who've used a beam-Coercer solo. However, its uses are more for fleets, but then Cormorant and even a Catalyst will be and is currently superior with long range turrets = /
All powerfull indeed.
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.
However, If the Coercer still had all its current slots and was given an extra mid slot it would be overpowered, but CCP didn't. Infact I was saying as much long ago, that if CCP did give a Coercer a mid slot. They would have to NERF it's damage or else OP.
If you look @ what CCP is proposing to do with a Catalyst. Using railguns a Catalyst will out damage and out range any Coercer setup. It's somewhat the same story with a Cormorant. Which will be on par damage wise to all Coercer setups.
CCP brought everthing else up to a Thrasher or Coercer level, in terms of damage or more with regard to the Catalyst. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
123
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:30:00 -
[417] - Quote
Why is the thrasher getting a speed nerf? Did CCP hear that people were armor-tanking them and decide this was unacceptable? |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:50:00 -
[418] - Quote
Very interesting changes. Blasters don't benefit much from a bonus to optimal range, but I guess the agility buff will help, more so considering I now have 1 (or 2, haven't run the numbers yet) free rig slot to increase range even more. This opens new posibilities for the Cat, which is something I approve of. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
899
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 06:40:00 -
[419] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'll tell all the tornado pilots fitting arty that they're doing it wrong then. I'll also stop using my Harpy with 9.6km optimal on Null because obviously optimal bonuses don't help blasters at all. Please don't tell me you're seriously arguing that the Tornado wouldn't be a superior artillery platform if it had an optimal bonus, or the blaster Harpy wouldn't work better with falloff. 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. |
Rayner Vanguard
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 09:38:00 -
[420] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:You wish is my command
- 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
Everything looks good except for the speed Remember that Coercer and Catalyst is using armor tank, which is making them slower
Both of them already have slower speed than the shield destroyer, then armor tank them will make them more difficult Also, with less shield and less mid, we can't shield tank it
|
|
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 :( |
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
881
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 17:01:00 -
[451] - Quote
I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
190
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 18:57:00 -
[452] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web.
Precisely, the gallente destroyer needs another mid to be any good, its supposed to be a blaster boat but it only has two mids for MWD and scram, no way can it hold anything down to blast them. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
673
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 19:34:00 -
[453] - Quote
Does an AC MSE Thrasher get roundly criticized for a lack of a web? The future Catalyst trades places with it as the fastest destroyer. It will also be able to fit Nuetrons. Add a TE and your optimal plus falloff is 6.3km + 7.2 km with Null compared to 1km + 9km for barrage with the Thrasher. More DPS farther. |
Xuixien
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
165
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 19:09:00 -
[454] - Quote
The problem here is that not every ship should be viable in solo PvP. Giving every Destroyer the ability to fit a 1MN MWD, a fat tank, enough guns to do 200 DPS, and a scram/web to "pin down" Frigates... all at the same time... is just stupid.
There should be trade offs between tackle, speed, tank, DPS, etc. Not every Destroyer should have all of them at the same time. For example: Your Catalyst has 3-4 LowSlots and only 2 mids? Cool, you get to choose between damage/tracking or armor tank. Alternately, you could fit damage mods and go for a shield tank, but lose your ability to tackle anything. Trade offs.
Every Destroyer should have at least two midslots for better gang support; prop mod + point/web. You're either an auxiliary point or you can web down drones and blap them. But I certainly don't think that armor-tanking destroyers need to fit both a scram and a web. And I don't think that shield-tanking destroyers need to have a lot of lowslots, either. There should be more consequences for choosing to fit a certain way over another, not making all the destroyers perform the same with different tools. Everyone vs Everyone Xuixien - Space Cat, Queen of Rens |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 14:18:00 -
[455] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I appreciate trying to make it so all of the destroyers aren't the same, but realistically you need to have a web in order to be able to kill a frigate, particularly when you're in a hull with a lower base speed than a frigate and particularly considering that most frigates nowadays can fit their own web. MSE Thrasher disagrees. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 16:02:00 -
[456] - Quote
idk if this is the best place for this, nor do i know if I will ever get a response. However....
Why does the Corax (Caldari destroyer's name) have a kinetic missile damage bonus? Let's take a look at the 4 main weapon systems:
- Lasers only do EM and THM because they are essentially focusing light. It makes sense that EM and THM is the damage type lasers do.
- Hybrids: afaik only does THM and KIN damage. but that makes sense because it is essentially a insanely hot plasma hitting you.
- Projectiles: Does all types of damage. This makes sense because you can make bullets burst out light, explode, catch fire, actually hit the targets.
- Missiles: All 4 damage types. Again with the projectiles you can make a missile do a lot of things.
I though Caldari was getting away from this Kenetic missiles damage bonus during the rebalancing. The kestrel lost the bonus. The Caracal lost the bonus. I had hopes the Drake would lose it also. I am so filled with joy because of the option of doing actual DPS with other damage types for the penalty of having to take 10 seconds to reload. But this kinetic bonus just pigeon holes caldari pilots to one predictable damage type.
IMO there is no good reason I can think of why a ship would even care what type of missile are loaded. All the ship does is fire the missile. It makes so much more sense for a ship to get an ROF bonus than a damage type bonus.
We have these wonderful flavors of missiles. I want choices. I want to use these other damage types. I want to adapt to situations like projectiles can. My Raven is awesome because I can adapt to to those changing situations. It feels great doing a useful damage type to a target. I am sure the Caracal and kestrel will have the same level of greatness.
My question is why is the bonus still popping up after other ships were just bonused away from it? It just doesn't make sense. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
88
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 00:47:00 -
[457] - Quote
RIP cormorant
seriously though these utility highs on long-range ships have got to go, they're totally useless. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Drunk 'n' Disorderly
241
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 20:32:00 -
[458] - Quote
A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!
Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
353
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 20:41:00 -
[459] - Quote
chatgris wrote:A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!
Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed.
Thats exactly what I told fozzie earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
116
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 21:07:00 -
[460] - Quote
It seems to me that CCP Ytterbium already has his mind set on the current setups and doesn't seem to listen and interact like our fave dev fozzie all these dessies in this page suffer from having to have 8 highs unlike the new dessies which rather limits them to certain roles. The catalyst which really ought to have a more flexible slot layout as a blaster boat 2 mids is really not good. coercer should have another low. Cormorant is too obsessed with sniper role and ought to have more opportunity to be a blaster boat with less optimal range bonus and more damage and extra mid. Thrasher why isn't this a traditional fast falloff ship? extra low He still hasn't updated the OP why? Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
|
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 22:07:00 -
[461] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:It seems to me that CCP Ytterbium already has his mind set on the current setups and doesn't seem to listen and interact like our fave dev fozzie all these dessies in this page suffer from having to have 8 highs unlike the new dessies which rather limits them to certain roles. The catalyst which really ought to have a more flexible slot layout as a blaster boat 2 mids is really not good. coercer should have another low. Cormorant is too obsessed with sniper role and ought to have more opportunity to be a blaster boat with less optimal range bonus and more damage and extra mid. Thrasher why isn't this a traditional fast falloff ship? extra low He still hasn't updated the OP why?
From that list, only the Coercer might have issues. The others are fine, especially Thrasher and Catalyst. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
648
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 22:22:00 -
[462] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:chatgris wrote:A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!
Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed. Thats exactly what I told CCP earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping
Its a missile ship. So for close range you will likely need to put a web on it if you want to do damage to an ab frigate. So I would say its really different. And in any event there is no need to make the corm an inferior thrasher. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 23:24:00 -
[463] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Michael Harari wrote:chatgris wrote:A cormorant with 3 mids is just a subpar thrasher - the 4 mids is what made the cormorant a good ship, please bring them back!
Yes, it will still fulfill the sniper role fine, but any close range role is greatly nerfed. Thats exactly what I told CCP earlier in the thread. However, the new caldari destroyer has 4 mids, and is superior for everything but super long range sniping Its a missile ship. So for close range you will likely need to put a web on it if you want to do damage to an ab frigate. So I would say its really different. And in any event there is no need to make the corm an inferior thrasher.
With the recent missile changes and its bonus to explosion velocity it will still hit an AB rifter for about 80% damage and any (non overheating) AB-Incursus for full damage with navy rockets. Also precision light missiles on the other hand will hit almost anything for full damage.
Not to lessen any concerns about the new niche of the Cormorant though. |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 11:26:00 -
[464] - Quote
I don't like the new destroyer names (assuming they are final), they don't follow racial naming theme and don't seem to have meaning (as opposed to tier 3 BC names which were very good). Especially The Dragoon...Congregator would be much better name for a drone boat and would fit with standard religious theme of Amarr ships. |
Aurelius Vicci
Effblock Materials Limited
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 16:40:00 -
[465] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:I don't like the new destroyer names (assuming they are final), they don't follow racial naming theme and don't seem to have meaning (as opposed to tier 3 BC names which were very good). Especially The Dragoon...Congregator would be much better name for a drone boat and would fit with standard religious theme of Amarr ships.
a rose by any other name..
edit: also, wrong thread |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:02:00 -
[466] - Quote
Aurelius Vicci wrote:
edit: also, wrong thread
LOL I am fail
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
108
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:31:00 -
[467] - Quote
Shopping List
1. Thrasher (still win!) 2. Coercer x 4 (1 setup, beam-fleet) [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 10:40:00 -
[468] - Quote
Unsticking, let's make some space for future threads. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |