EVE Search - Updating Destroyers

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.09 16:16:00 - [61] Edited by: Nyxus on 09/04/2005 19:02:44 from the Eve-Online website Destroyers: Anti-frigate gunboats. The middle ground between a frigate and a cruiser Stats of Gallente ships: Incursus Shield: 200 Armor: 235 Mass: 29500 Catalyst Shield: 325 Armor: 350 Mass: 1750000 Enyo Shield: 265 Armor: 625 Mass: 1950000 Vexor Shield: 750 Armor: 950 Mass: 11250000 Here it is plain to see that the Destroyers are short a bit in the armor department. Adding a bit more would balance them out. We NEED Tech 2 Destroyers now. The absolute dominance of T2 frigates on the battlefield versus anything sub Battleship (maybe BC) is readily appearant to anyone who pvp's at all. Destroyers are the counter to Tech 2 Friggies. We need Tech 2 Destroyers to counter the Tech 2 Frigates, tech 1 Destroyers are good versus tech 1 frigates but are easily annihilated by T2 frigs. Really - tech 1 and tech 2 destroyers shoulda have been released at the same time considering that frigates already had both types on the market in ready abundance. Nyxus
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2005.04.09 16:16:00 - [62] Edited by: Nyxus on 09/04/2005 19:02:44 from the Eve-Online website Destroyers: Anti-frigate gunboats. The middle ground between a frigate and a cruiser Stats of Gallente ships: Incursus Shield: 200 Armor: 235 Mass: 29500 Catalyst Shield: 325 Armor: 350 Mass: 1750000 Enyo Shield: 265 Armor: 625 Mass: 1950000 Vexor Shield: 750 Armor: 950 Mass: 11250000 Here it is plain to see that the Destroyers are short a bit in the armor department. Adding a bit more would balance them out. We NEED Tech 2 Destroyers now. The absolute dominance of T2 frigates on the battlefield versus anything sub Battleship (maybe BC) is readily appearant to anyone who pvp's at all. Destroyers are the counter to Tech 2 Friggies. We need Tech 2 Destroyers to counter the Tech 2 Frigates, tech 1 Destroyers are good versus tech 1 frigates but are easily annihilated by T2 frigs. Really - tech 1 and tech 2 destroyers shoulda have been released at the same time considering that frigates already had both types on the market in ready abundance. Nyxus Originally by: keepiru I cant imagine a stronger signal of how pants 3/4 of new BS are than the fact that Matari will be training Amarr BS and Amarrians will be training Large Projectile to use the same ship
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.04.09 16:26:00 - [63] Originally by: Bazman Originally by: Alexi Borizkova It appears the problem lies in people comparign the desty(which is t1) to t2 ships. Compare the Destroyer not to the t2 ships, but to plain old t1 frigates... now they appear nearly godlike in their offensive capability. It seems that the Destroyers would have been great if they had existed as t1 ships all along, and now would be time to introduce a t2 version, but instead they were released into an environment where tech1 ships and modules are becoming virtually obsolete for... well, nigh on anything. Much like my main arguments about the current market system, it would have been great if it was that way from the beginning, but inflicting it on the game now is a nerf of massive proportions. Bah, destroyers die to properlly fitted(tm) kestrals, they suck :p A Dessie with 7 or 8 guns firing at their normal rate can only sustain it for a little while, after that, they either have cap death, or they are dead. If dessies didn't have the rate of fire penalty, they might actually be a danger to interceptors and fast frigates, all the while still being paper thin Thrasher with 280 IIs and micro aux in lows can 1 volley kill frigs and intys and make a serious hurting on cruisers. Destroyers should not be changed at all. They are a cheap disposable anti frig ship. If they were boosted in any way, their price needs to go up as well.
DrunkenOne Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.04.09 16:26:00 - [64] Originally by: Bazman Originally by: Alexi Borizkova It appears the problem lies in people comparign the desty(which is t1) to t2 ships. Compare the Destroyer not to the t2 ships, but to plain old t1 frigates... now they appear nearly godlike in their offensive capability. It seems that the Destroyers would have been great if they had existed as t1 ships all along, and now would be time to introduce a t2 version, but instead they were released into an environment where tech1 ships and modules are becoming virtually obsolete for... well, nigh on anything. Much like my main arguments about the current market system, it would have been great if it was that way from the beginning, but inflicting it on the game now is a nerf of massive proportions. Bah, destroyers die to properlly fitted(tm) kestrals, they suck :p A Dessie with 7 or 8 guns firing at their normal rate can only sustain it for a little while, after that, they either have cap death, or they are dead. If dessies didn't have the rate of fire penalty, they might actually be a danger to interceptors and fast frigates, all the while still being paper thin Thrasher with 280 IIs and micro aux in lows can 1 volley kill frigs and intys and make a serious hurting on cruisers. Destroyers should not be changed at all. They are a cheap disposable anti frig ship. If they were boosted in any way, their price needs to go up as well. Please resize your signature graphic to be smaller than 24,000 bytes in filesize - Jacques
Bosie	Posted - 2005.04.09 17:36:00 - [65] To those asking for a tech II Destroyer to perform as an anti-frig platform, take a look at assault frigs. Bosie. http://bosie.proboards40.com/ http://zeroimpact.co.uk/evemap
Bosie Caldari	Posted - 2005.04.09 17:36:00 - [66] To those asking for a tech II Destroyer to perform as an anti-frig platform, take a look at assault frigs. Bosie. "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND." ...Winston
Carmen Priano	Posted - 2005.04.09 17:54:00 - [67] To those comparing destroyers to mid- or high-range cruisers in toughness, remember that these are between top frigates and low cruisers in survivability -- this is to say that the destroyers ought be compared with the entry-level cruiser in a group; Cormorant with the Osprey, Coercer with the Augorer, et cet., instead of with mid-range cruisers such as the Vexor, Omen, et cet.
Carmen Priano Caldari Cascade Industries	Posted - 2005.04.09 17:54:00 - [68] To those comparing destroyers to mid- or high-range cruisers in toughness, remember that these are between top frigates and low cruisers in survivability -- this is to say that the destroyers ought be compared with the entry-level cruiser in a group; Cormorant with the Osprey, Coercer with the Augorer, et cet., instead of with mid-range cruisers such as the Vexor, Omen, et cet.
Thelron	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:08:00 - [69] In which case they still die a horrible horrible death. Not too many people are saying that destroyers have a low damage output, for their size they get very good dps even with the ROF penalty. The problem is what happens when their first volley doesn't kill their target. Destroyers are a midpoint between frigs and cruisers in that they have frigate-sized hull/armor/shield/fittings, including some pretty limited defensive options between slots and cpu/grid, while they are hit more like cruisers between a big sig radius and not-so-great agility. So, sure they can go 1-on-1 with other paper ships, but against a few ships or any time there's something bigger around, the destroyer's only real defense is to hope there's something tastier around. I agree with the sentiment to increase their defenses a bit and to drop the sig radius down a little as well. Offensively they don't really need any changes, they toss out plenty of fire when they're able to stick around long enough to get a few volleys in.
Thelron	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:08:00 - [70] In which case they still die a horrible horrible death. Not too many people are saying that destroyers have a low damage output, for their size they get very good dps even with the ROF penalty. The problem is what happens when their first volley doesn't kill their target. Destroyers are a midpoint between frigs and cruisers in that they have frigate-sized hull/armor/shield/fittings, including some pretty limited defensive options between slots and cpu/grid, while they are hit more like cruisers between a big sig radius and not-so-great agility. So, sure they can go 1-on-1 with other paper ships, but against a few ships or any time there's something bigger around, the destroyer's only real defense is to hope there's something tastier around. I agree with the sentiment to increase their defenses a bit and to drop the sig radius down a little as well. Offensively they don't really need any changes, they toss out plenty of fire when they're able to stick around long enough to get a few volleys in.
Sadist	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:53:00 - [71] Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 23:57:13 this post stated that cormorant be changed to catalyst. _______________________________________________
Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:53:00 - [72] Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 23:57:13 this post stated that cormorant be changed to catalyst. òòòòòòòòòòòò VIP member of the [23] Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:58:00 - [73] The purpose of a destroyer is to be an anti-frigate platform. Assault frigs have the armor of a low end cruiser, combinded with massive resists. While they have fewer guns than a destroyer, they have damage bonuses and no rof penalty. This leaves tech 1 destroyers at a severe disadvantage (as they should be). T2 Destroyers should have armor equivalent to a tier 3 cruiser and resists and pg/cpu bonuses like the Assault frigs. Give em a -15% rof and I would be thrilled to have em. Alternatively, give them a strong hp boost and a -25% rof penalty.....and that is given a +5% rof for every lvl of Destroyer. So at lvl 5 no rof penalty. Nyxus
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2005.04.09 18:58:00 - [74] The purpose of a destroyer is to be an anti-frigate platform. Assault frigs have the armor of a low end cruiser, combinded with massive resists. While they have fewer guns than a destroyer, they have damage bonuses and no rof penalty. This leaves tech 1 destroyers at a severe disadvantage (as they should be). T2 Destroyers should have armor equivalent to a tier 3 cruiser and resists and pg/cpu bonuses like the Assault frigs. Give em a -15% rof and I would be thrilled to have em. Alternatively, give them a strong hp boost and a -25% rof penalty.....and that is given a +5% rof for every lvl of Destroyer. So at lvl 5 no rof penalty. Nyxus Originally by: keepiru I cant imagine a stronger signal of how pants 3/4 of new BS are than the fact that Matari will be training Amarr BS and Amarrians will be training Large Projectile to use the same ship
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.09 19:05:00 - [75] Quote: Are you [bleep]? Cormorant is caldari, which rely on shield. Comparing them to other 3 gallente ships isnt going to prove anything. WOOPS! Typo. Said Cormorant, but anyone who looked at the stats would know that it was Catalyst stats. Corrected the orginal to read cormorant. Thanks for catching that. Nyxus
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2005.04.09 19:05:00 - [76] Quote: Are you [bleep]? Cormorant is caldari, which rely on shield. Comparing them to other 3 gallente ships isnt going to prove anything. WOOPS! Typo. Said Cormorant, but anyone who looked at the stats would know that it was Catalyst stats. Corrected the orginal to read cormorant. Thanks for catching that. Nyxus Originally by: keepiru I cant imagine a stronger signal of how pants 3/4 of new BS are than the fact that Matari will be training Amarr BS and Amarrians will be training Large Projectile to use the same ship
James Draekn	Posted - 2005.04.09 19:39:00 - [77] I'm just hoping that a DEV will read this and act, because in reality a T2 Destroyer would be a nightmare to most ships especially Assault frigs. Making it a happy medium between Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships.
James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik	Posted - 2005.04.09 19:39:00 - [78] I'm just hoping that a DEV will read this and act, because in reality a T2 Destroyer would be a nightmare to most ships especially Assault frigs. Making it a happy medium between Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships.
Kashre	Posted - 2005.04.09 23:37:00 - [79] There is nothing wrong with the current destroyers. Like has allready been said, they are made for killing T1 frigates, which they do fairly well. Id welcome T2 destroyers as a mid point between AF and HAC, but god leave the T1 DDs alone, there are plenty of other more important things to do first. +++ It's called "low security space" for a reason.
Kashre Minmatar Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2005.04.09 23:37:00 - [80] There is nothing wrong with the current destroyers. Like has allready been said, they are made for killing T1 frigates, which they do fairly well. Id welcome T2 destroyers as a mid point between AF and HAC, but god leave the T1 DDs alone, there are plenty of other more important things to do first. +++ "Etiquette is for the Dojo. In war there is only victory or death." - Eiji Yoshikawa
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:07:00 - [81] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:18 delete I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Letifer Deus The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:07:00 - [82] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:18 delete ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:09:00 - [83] Originally by: Sadist Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 02:09:45 Originally by: Caldorous Seeing the usefulness of a brutix these days... the gallente NEED a tier 2 bc (at least) or a boost on it's evasive capacities A brutix not only can kill NPC's faster than a Ferox, but also mount 7 miner II's to make a medium barge in the hull of a battlecruiser. If a person cant make any ship usefull - theres no need to flaunt his lack of skills on the forums and blame the ship for it. Although I do agree on a little CPU boost for the brutix. whoopty-friggin-doo. Brutix is good at mining and NPC hunting. It sucks donkey member as far as PvP. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Letifer Deus The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:09:00 - [84] Originally by: Sadist Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 02:09:45 Originally by: Caldorous Seeing the usefulness of a brutix these days... the gallente NEED a tier 2 bc (at least) or a boost on it's evasive capacities A brutix not only can kill NPC's faster than a Ferox, but also mount 7 miner II's to make a medium barge in the hull of a battlecruiser. If a person cant make any ship usefull - theres no need to flaunt his lack of skills on the forums and blame the ship for it. Although I do agree on a little CPU boost for the brutix. whoopty-friggin-doo. Brutix is good at mining and NPC hunting. It sucks donkey member as far as PvP. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:47:00 - [85] Originally by: James Draekn Does anyone here think that the Destroyers should be beefed up some? What I would suggest is that that CCP boost the hitpoint to Sheild, Armor, and Structure to around 550-600 to make these ships balanced. I am comparing it to the Battlecruiser which has about the double the strength of a cruiser yet half the strength of a Battleship. The destroyer is basically a bigger frigate with more guns and a larger signature radius right now and doesn't last long in combat. Would make a perfect change to allow younger players a cheap yet tough ship. Anyone????? 1)A destroyer does have about half the HP of a cruiser. Cormorant has 1000 total HP, Osprey has 2075. 2) With lvl 5 skills, one can run a cormorant with 7x 125mm rail II, std launcher, mwd, web, scrambler, smalls shield booster II, micro aux and mag. stab. II. Doing 144 dmg/sec. The 125mm T2s will have .146 tracking, an optimal of 9.375km with antimatter and an optimal of 30km with iron. 3) A Catalyst with 8x light electron IIs and 3 dmg mods will outdamage a taranis with 3x light ion IIs and 3 dmg mods by ~32.7%. 4) lvl 5 on all relevent skills, a Thrasher with 7x 280mm IIs (15x dmg mod,) a dmg mod and a micro aux, can easily insta-kill a frig/inty. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Letifer Deus The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2005.04.10 01:47:00 - [86] Originally by: James Draekn Does anyone here think that the Destroyers should be beefed up some? What I would suggest is that that CCP boost the hitpoint to Sheild, Armor, and Structure to around 550-600 to make these ships balanced. I am comparing it to the Battlecruiser which has about the double the strength of a cruiser yet half the strength of a Battleship. The destroyer is basically a bigger frigate with more guns and a larger signature radius right now and doesn't last long in combat. Would make a perfect change to allow younger players a cheap yet tough ship. Anyone????? 1)A destroyer does have about half the HP of a cruiser. Cormorant has 1000 total HP, Osprey has 2075. 2) With lvl 5 skills, one can run a cormorant with 7x 125mm rail II, std launcher, mwd, web, scrambler, smalls shield booster II, micro aux and mag. stab. II. Doing 144 dmg/sec. The 125mm T2s will have .146 tracking, an optimal of 9.375km with antimatter and an optimal of 30km with iron. 3) A Catalyst with 8x light electron IIs and 3 dmg mods will outdamage a taranis with 3x light ion IIs and 3 dmg mods by ~32.7%. 4) lvl 5 on all relevent skills, a Thrasher with 7x 280mm IIs (15x dmg mod,) a dmg mod and a micro aux, can easily insta-kill a frig/inty. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Isonkon Serikain	Posted - 2005.04.10 02:06:00 - [87] a properly setup rupture/thorax/maller/moa makes a great anti AF boat...For half the price...
Isonkon Serikain Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2005.04.10 02:06:00 - [88] a properly setup rupture/thorax/maller/moa makes a great anti AF boat...For half the price... Pity the fool
Lygos	Posted - 2005.04.10 05:02:00 - [89] Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 05:03:49 As much as I like the idea of destroyers being restricted in ability against only other destroyers, ordinary frigates, drones, and interceptors one on one, (not counting pilot skill) I believe that such limitations are still kind of pointless so long as smaller ship classes don't have greater envelope of immunity from significantly larger hulls. (Currently that envelope is either in a safespot or farther than 150 km away from any battleship sized foe. The impropriety in that is both obvious and staggering.) If destroyers can only hurt frigates, or badly piloted interceptors, and battleship sized weapons can knock frigates and even drones out of the sky with ease.. then there is really no role for destroyers. This easily trumps my contention that wealthier people are better than others. Wealth is only a tool for maintaining good habits and bringing order to the frontiers of society. The chain of purpose in ship classes is essential for order on the battlefield and jus ad bellum as well as jus in bello. Cruisers should obliterate all frigate classes and contend with other cruisers. The assault frigs and HACs are the only ones which should cross the line slightly. Battleships should only be able to obliterate cruiser classes, and contend with one another provided they fit to do one or the other. Likewise, single frigates should have a pretty hard time breaking the ordinary passive shield regen on battleships when solo while contending with anti-frigate drones. (heavier drones are wanted against other battleships and cruisers) Hence the great circle of consumption that makes all ship classes useful provided CCP spaces them out. When dreadnaughts come out, or whichever ship hull carries XL turrets, they should have a hard time scratching cruisers, pwn battleships solo, and contend with one another if they are fitted properly with an anti-dread setup. (mega drones) Solo cruisers should have a hard time breaking the passive shield tank on a dread or XL turret platform. That way the great chain would be continued.
Lygos ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2005.04.10 05:02:00 - [90] Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 05:03:49 As much as I like the idea of destroyers being restricted in ability against only other destroyers, ordinary frigates, drones, and interceptors one on one, (not counting pilot skill) I believe that such limitations are still kind of pointless so long as smaller ship classes don't have greater envelope of immunity from significantly larger hulls. (Currently that envelope is either in a safespot or farther than 150 km away from any battleship sized foe. The impropriety in that is both obvious and staggering.) If destroyers can only hurt frigates, or badly piloted interceptors, and battleship sized weapons can knock frigates and even drones out of the sky with ease.. then there is really no role for destroyers. This easily trumps my contention that wealthier people are better than others. Wealth is only a tool for maintaining good habits and bringing order to the frontiers of society. The chain of purpose in ship classes is essential for order on the battlefield and jus ad bellum as well as jus in bello. Cruisers should obliterate all frigate classes and contend with other cruisers. The assault frigs and HACs are the only ones which should cross the line slightly. Battleships should only be able to obliterate cruiser classes, and contend with one another provided they fit to do one or the other. Likewise, single frigates should have a pretty hard time breaking the ordinary passive shield regen on battleships when solo while contending with anti-frigate drones. (heavier drones are wanted against other battleships and cruisers) Hence the great circle of consumption that makes all ship classes useful provided CCP spaces them out. When dreadnaughts come out, or whichever ship hull carries XL turrets, they should have a hard time scratching cruisers, pwn battleships solo, and contend with one another if they are fitted properly with an anti-dread setup. (mega drones) Solo cruisers should have a hard time breaking the passive shield tank on a dread or XL turret platform. That way the great chain would be continued. --- Private Investment should preceed Public Investment

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: 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.