EVE Search - [Proposal]Fixing Destroyers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal]Fixing Destroyers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wrath IX	Posted - 2010.12.20 08:31:00 - [1] Most everyone seems to agree that Destroyers are a very poor choice in terms of combat ships. Most everyone seems to agree that Destroyers are a very poor choice in terms of combat ships. I looked over the stats and did a bunch of research and number crunching and came up with a few minor alterations to the game base stats of destroyers which I think could revive the Destroyers from retirement and get them out on the front lines. 1) Make them Smaller: Reduce overall size of destroyers by 40-50% (puts them at about 165 meters) and adjust their maneuvering stats, such as inertia and mass, to reflect this smaller size. 2) Re-enforce them: Increase Hull, Armor, and Shielding by 50% (which puts them roughly at 900-1000) so they can actually take more abuse then frigates but not as much as cruiser 3) A little more Speed please: a 20% boost to speed will give them a better chance at keeping pace with most of frigates they are supposed to be protecting the fleet from, and help them with evading battle cruiser and battleship shots. 4) Re-align Fittings: Reduce High Slots by 2 and increase Low and mid slots by 1 each. This makes them more versatile and robust ships while still letting them mount more firepower then any frigate out there and you can always give the high slots back in the tech 2 versions but keep the additional mid and low points. 5) [Personal preference] it might be nice to see the destroyers get a little face lift with some new models. But seriously they would still be good if they just rescaled the existing models for the coercer, cormorant, catalyst, and thrasher to the smaller scale noted in #1 but one can hope. So what does everyone think of this idea?
Xercodo INESTO Task Force	Posted - 2010.12.20 11:34:00 - [2] make them frig : dessy :: cruiser : BC not bad what you got there i should say make them smaller physically but small sig radius or something -------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.20 12:31:00 - [3] Destroyers are actually a very good choice for combat as long as you are not up against cruisers or larger. They are so good in fact that a couple of them can take cruisers consistently and without issues. - Signature reduction I can get behind, should be slightly larger (45-50m) than the largest frigates and not 2-3x the size as they are (75-90m). - Increasing base EHP is not really needed, especially not by a massive 50%. They already get as much as a buffered frigate by using only a damage control (they should not be balanced against T2 frigates when it comes to EHP). - Boost to speed comes from the mass reduction so no need. They should NOT actually be able to keep up with frigate as they have a huge range advantage, MWD speed should be roughly 25-30% lower than that of frigates (without speed mods). - They really do not need any more slots, giving them more obsoletes frigates entirely as you have tackle/eWar on all of them plus damage+tank+speed. - Highs should adopt the Marauder/Faction scheme of "half mounts, 2x damage" .. will cut cost immensely. Seven gun hulls get a slight damage increase and Catalyst+Coercer can then get a mid each. All should have two utility slots for neuts/nos .. twin staggered neuts are the bane of all frigates, once on top of one it should be GameOver. That is my take on the Destroyers having killed and died in them for years in FW.
Corina Jarr	Posted - 2010.12.20 21:00:00 - [4] Really, my only complaint in the Coercer (PvE mind you) is the single mid and its pathetic sig/size. Really, why is a dessie as big as a BC? That makes no sense.
Linna Excel	Posted - 2010.12.20 22:32:00 - [5] IMO the gallente destroyer should have more than a 5m drone bay. It should be 10m at least... maybe 15m. 1. That's a little too much. Particularly for a first time change. Do it in smaller incriments. 2. Too much reinforcement and they'll be cruisers. IMO they should be able to handle maybe two player frigates (three if poor fitting/skill). If they can't 1v1 a frigate, then they would need a buff. I also think that they are meant to be support ships and not solo vs a gang of frigates. 3. Put them at about 300 m/s base speed and they'll be good. 4. No, the high slots makes them fun and good for salvaging. IMO they are supposed to be frigates with more high slots, nothing more. That's how they should be so adding more mid/low slots and you're moving them too far away from what they're meant to be. 5. New ship models are always nice.
Sir Drake	Posted - 2010.12.20 22:58:00 - [6] Edited by: Sir Drake on 20/12/2010 22:58:08 Destroyers are fine against t1 frigs and therefore doing that they are designed to do. I would just like them to have much better tracking (enough to hit frigs orbiting with 4km/s+) to make them viable against high-speed t2/faction frigs. Its a bit sad that some Dramiel or Daredevil can kite those dessys without fear of getting hit. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
Herping yourDerp	Posted - 2010.12.21 00:00:00 - [7] gaylente dessie should have bigger drone bay thrasher is fine missiles for caldari coercer needs a slot overhaul to be useful.
Wrath IX	Posted - 2010.12.30 21:10:00 - [8] Ok so lets modify it then Size: Reduction preferable but not neccessary EHP increase: 30% down from original 50% (which would put them at around 700-800 on their best) Speed: 20-30% speed increase (as original request) Fittings: Highslots reduced to 6 mid and low increased by 1 each (same as original) Drone: a 10-15 cubic meter increase to drone space and bandwidth(addition based on suggestions) Turrents: (caldari version increase launcher slot by 1 or 2) Adjustments transfer over to T2 variants as well How are we with those adjustments?
Cal Rogers	Posted - 2010.12.30 21:41:00 - [9] Yeah, some of those changes would be really welcome, Wrath! Dessies should have a more important role in battle, and those changes would really help!
CHris511	Posted - 2010.12.30 21:51:00 - [10] I agree in light of the noctis the destroyers need an overhaul I agree with size and mass reduction far to easy to big a target at present however I think the high slots need to stay the same as the noctis requires BC quantities of minerals to build the price is not likely to drop below about 25 mill they need to retain the cheap salvager role but six weapons and 2 utility slots would work and a tank boost would be great although perhaps not as much as in OP don't want them encroaching on cruiser or t2 frig territory. More mids for coercer would be great More drones for catylst More missiles for cormorant Would also like another low for cormorant - with only one it's fail as as salvager

Niklas	Posted - 2010.12.31 05:49:00 - [11] Bit smaller sig. 60ish. Toss the rof penalty then 6 turrets, or 4 with a damage buff. 2 more mids/lows. they have 1 less slot than frigs now. Should have 1 more. Check to see if they need more buffer at this point. The extra slots may show its not needed. Partial nerf as well.. sig res/tracking speed nerf, as a complement to that range they get. Don't want them to replace frigs entirely.
Stupid McStupidson Hoek Lyne and Sinker	Posted - 2011.01.01 21:04:00 - [12] Supported conditionally; I don't think they need a HP boost, relatively weak tank/HP I think fits with the destroyer concept. They do need a sig reduction, so they aren't insta-pop with cruisers and above on the field. They could also use a scosh more CPU/Grid, though I'm unsure about adding slots. I'd also fore-go more grid/cpu on the Gallente boat in return for being having the drone bay/bandwidth for at least 3 lights.
Nevryn Takis	Posted - 2011.01.02 11:23:00 - [13] The only thing I think destroyers need is about 20% more cap and 5% greater cap regen.. May be slightly variable across races as the cap on the catalyst sucks really badly..
Scorpionidae	Posted - 2011.01.02 12:12:00 - [14] Edited by: Scorpionidae on 02/01/2011 12:12:16 IMO the Coercer is the only one that needs a buff one exsta mid slot please. I mean its ment to be a frig killer but how dose it kill frigs if it can't hold it down? I think what you said is a great idea but insted of removing 2 high slots just remove one high slot and put it in the place that it is needed the most for said ship. Scorpionidae Edit: forgot to thumbs up.
Squeakee Bunny	Posted - 2011.01.02 15:29:00 - [15] If you do this though then you remove the best low end salvager in the game. Why not just change them to be a mini noctis with reduced bonuses? Personally I did all of my lvl 1 missions in a destroyer and had no problems at all with lvl 1 missions. I only ever had problems with three of the SOE missions.
Wrath IX	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:24:00 - [16] Edited by: Wrath IX on 26/01/2011 10:26:41 So based on the responce I have gotten on this topic here are the basic area's as far as I can tell where most people agree are. 1)Sitting ducks: destroyers are too big of a target without the ability to either mount a good tank or enough speed to evade fire from cruisers and other larger ships. a)So we would like to see slightly smaller size ship size/signature. b) Slight increase in speed and better manueverability 2)Weak Fittings: destroyers are supposed to be anti frigate ships but have such poorly configured mid and low slot arrangements that they are unable to mount effective tanks and have tackle. a)increase mid and low slots to a minimum of three and a maximum of 6. (or an increase of 2 slots to both mid andlow slots for each ship respectively) 3) role bonuses: as anti frigate ships the destroyer is lacking one critically neccessary bonus. "tracking" So lets see a 5-10% bonus in weapon tracking per level of destroyer skill. Optional stuff that is optional since opinions on these differ quite a bit. a) Drone bays: it would be nice to see destroyers have more in the way of drone bays we can live without it if we must. b) 1 or two more missle slots for caldari destroyer but like the drones issue we can also live without it. c)it may be neccessary to tweek the powergrid and cpu for the destroyers due to the increased mid and low slots. I removed the part about increasing the structure, armor, and shielding of the destroyers. While I would still like to see some improvement in this area but the additional mid and low slots would be enought to allow better tanking on destroyers. So is this something we can all get behind?
Val'Dore Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:31:00 - [17] Destroyers always seemed to be filler ships with no real purpose. New players can't use them effectively and vets don't need them at all. So what should be done? Make them to Frigates what Battlecruisers are to Cruisers? Maybe. ~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Wrath IX	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:50:00 - [18] they just need to be adjusted so that veterans would actually consider using them for their designated role.
Jalmari Huitsikko Caldari Certified Household Sweeping Consulting	Posted - 2011.01.26 10:53:00 - [19] Thrasher
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.01.26 11:02:00 - [20] i think the problem is, where ccp is concerned, is to make 4 dessies that arent basically the same ship in different models, so the idea i think should be that each of them should have bonuses to different ways of keeping frigs down, but make sure that no 1 type dominates at taking out frigs. if u cant lock fast enough u cant push dps if u cant track fast enough u cant push dps if u cant get close enough u cant push dps from those 3 'if' statements u can make 4 different flavours that compliment each other without 1 being overly dominant. the problem is to cap their abilities to not challenge combat and force recons. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2

Cearain Caldari The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION	Posted - 2011.01.26 16:32:00 - [21] I think there is plenty of variety at the sub cruiser level compared to the cruiser and up level. Lots of variety of ships being flown. If you lower the sig radius on dessies then how is this much different than a t2 frigate? It seems this would make the game less diverse. Sure you will make t2 assault frigates even more obsolete but why is that good? Instead of continually tweaking sub cruiser stuff I wish they would work on the cruiser and up ships to give more variety. Drop the stupid tier system and/or boost the tier 1 BCs so they are competitive. Boost allot of the worthless t1 cruisers. Give us a reason to fly something other than blackbird, anti frigate caracal or rupture. -Cearain Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906
Two Shots Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 17:45:00 - [22] Shamans are fine. Learn to play. Two Shots Goonwaffe *Goonswarm Federation* Official Recruiting Officer
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.01.26 18:11:00 - [23] Originally by: Cearain If you lower the sig radius on dessies then how is this much different than a t2 frigate? It seems this would make the game less diverse. Sure you will make t2 assault frigates even more obsolete but why is that good? if you refer to my original post you'd see that i didnt mean change the dessies sig radius, but improve 1 of the races dessies scan resolution. heres a forum thread explaining the difference Linky!! the difference between a change i was referring to would still mean assault frigs are faster more agile and have a lower sig radius... yes theres a variety of ships sub-cruiser, bt theyre almost exclusively frig hulls. the only exception are dictors, and theyre only used solely for bubbling. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:47:00 - [24] OK, here's something I wrote up a little while ago with the intention of making destroyers not completely terrible: Universal changes: Remove RoF penalty. Remove 2 highslots Add 1 midslot, 1 lowslot. Add hitpoints (something around 20%)to racial tanking layer Reduced sig radius (something around 20%) Further changes to individual hulls described later. -----------------
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:49:00 - [25] CATALYST: Notes: The Catalyst is particularly ill-treated by the current destroyer profile, splitting its optimal and falloff bonuses awkwardly. This profile reconfigures it into a genuine gallente role: tackle, blasters and drones. NEW CATALYST Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed per level 5% bonus to drone damage + hitpoints per level Role Bonus: 50% bonus to falloff range for small hybrid turrets High slots: 6 Medium slots: 3 Low slots: 4 Power output: 60 MW CPU output: 170 tf Turret slots: 6 Launcher slots: 0 Shield capacity: 677 Armor HP: 885 Capacitor: 468 Drones: 45 m3 Drone Bandwidth: 15 m3 Signature Radius: 64m Max Speed: 245 m/s -----------------
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:52:00 - [26] COERCER: Notes: The reduced number of turrets means the Cap usage bonus is less critical, and extra mid and lowslot allow for cap modules if needed. New Coercer Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking speed 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage per level Role Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small energy turrets High slots: 6 Medium slots: 2 Low slots: 5 Power output: 75 MW CPU output: 160 tf Turret slots: 6 Launcher slots: 0 Shield capacity: 625 Armor HP: 900 Capacitor: 450 Drones: 0 m3 Drone Bandwidth: 0 Sig Radius: 60m Max Speed: 220 m/s -----------------
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:54:00 - [27] CORMORANT Notes: Keeps the pure sniper role with the double-optimal bonus and only loses one turret hardpoint to keep it on par with the others (unbonused launchers can't reach out to sniping range anyway). The damage bonus helps compensate for the low DPS of rails in general. NEW CORMORANT Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid damage per level 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range per level Role Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small hybrid turrets High slots: 6 Medium slots: 5 Low slots: 2 Power output: 55 MW CPU output: 215 tf Turret slots: 6 Launcher slots: 1 Max targets: 7 Shield capacity: 782 Armor HP: 625 Capacitor: 500 Drones: 0 m3 Drone Bandwidth: 0 Sig Radius: 70m Max Speed: 210 m/s -----------------
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:57:00 - [28] THRASHER Notes: Intentionally pushing the thrasher towards autocannons/tackle here rather than the mostly obsolete alpha sniper role. Only 5 turrets, but double damage bonus! New Thrasher Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret rate of fire per level 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage per level Role Bonus: 50% bonus to small projectile turret falloff range High slots: 6 Medium slots: 4 Low slots: 3 Power output: 70 MW CPU output: 170 tf Turret slots: 5 Launcher slots: 2 Max targets: 6 Shield capacity: 880 Armor HP: 677 Capacitor: 437 Drones: 0 m3 Drone Bandwidth: 0 Sig Radius: 60m Max Speed: 250 m/s -----------------
Solaris Avanger	Posted - 2011.01.26 22:24:00 - [29] i support teh idea i love the thrasher design but its more serve as a decoration in my hangar than any use
LarpingBard	Posted - 2011.01.26 22:28:00 - [30] I can take my cormy into many level 4s and survive. They just can't do the dps to make it worth it. :) I think it's fine as it is...until we get tech 3 dessies!



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.