|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Shasinaha    |
Posted - 2005.04.10 05:30:00 -
[91] I totally agree with there needing to be a set limit between the class of ships. Primarly two classes need a bit of an over haul and thats both Battlecruisers and Destroyers. Now with BCs they only need a slight GP and CPU upgrade. The only thing I don't understand about BCs is that in actual naval warfare (Talking at a time when countries actually still used them) BCs carried near BS grade weapons, while sacr. armor for speed. Example is that in general Cruisers carried 8-10 inch Guns (Light Cruisers 6-7inch) While BCs carried 12-14inch (Most BS carried 15-18inch) So now to link this concept to this game. Since im Amarr im going to use this as a bases for my examples. The Apoc has a PG of 19500 and a CPU of 500. While the Prophecy has 1200 PG and 350 CPU. Now the armor is perfect, about half of a BS, while getting some more speed. What the BCs all need across the board is a PG increase of about 70% across all of them, and only a very slight CPU upgrade. This would allow a BC to carry and use BS type weapons (Since they could pretty much do this in the true concept.) However limiting them to running out like a BS, since they can't carry nearly as much of them. Which also means they need a Cap increase as well. The slots on all of them are pretty good. Now to look at Destroyers. Okay these ships need some lovin badly lol. Especially the Coercer, the Cormorant is a good ship over all. Now lets look at the ships. I think removing that -25% RoF pen might be a bit over doing it, but lessening it might help. Maybe a -10% pen. and increasing its armor/shield/speed and a little more PG and Cap. Now about the T2 Destroyers, I really don't know about that one myself. All in all feel free to correct me on something that ive placed. Its only my 2 cents. |
 Shasinaha |
Posted - 2005.04.10 05:30:00 -
[92] I totally agree with there needing to be a set limit between the class of ships. Primarly two classes need a bit of an over haul and thats both Battlecruisers and Destroyers. Now with BCs they only need a slight GP and CPU upgrade. The only thing I don't understand about BCs is that in actual naval warfare (Talking at a time when countries actually still used them) BCs carried near BS grade weapons, while sacr. armor for speed. Example is that in general Cruisers carried 8-10 inch Guns (Light Cruisers 6-7inch) While BCs carried 12-14inch (Most BS carried 15-18inch) So now to link this concept to this game. Since im Amarr im going to use this as a bases for my examples. The Apoc has a PG of 19500 and a CPU of 500. While the Prophecy has 1200 PG and 350 CPU. Now the armor is perfect, about half of a BS, while getting some more speed. What the BCs all need across the board is a PG increase of about 70% across all of them, and only a very slight CPU upgrade. This would allow a BC to carry and use BS type weapons (Since they could pretty much do this in the true concept.) However limiting them to running out like a BS, since they can't carry nearly as much of them. Which also means they need a Cap increase as well. The slots on all of them are pretty good. Now to look at Destroyers. Okay these ships need some lovin badly lol. Especially the Coercer, the Cormorant is a good ship over all. Now lets look at the ships. I think removing that -25% RoF pen might be a bit over doing it, but lessening it might help. Maybe a -10% pen. and increasing its armor/shield/speed and a little more PG and Cap. Now about the T2 Destroyers, I really don't know about that one myself. All in all feel free to correct me on something that ive placed. Its only my 2 cents. |
 Lygos |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:01:00 -
[93] Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 11:03:26 Well, I agree that there is no point in making the Destroyer substitute for an assault frigate. Hence, if we want the lowest common denominator setup, and less skill intensive, then we are probably looking for a frigate that hits close to as well as an assault frigate, but moves a good deal more quickly and with more nimbleness. But finally it has a reduced signature radius though little armor and unremarkable resistances. Hence, prey to cruisers and assault frigates (and torpendoes). If we do that though, it is impinging on the domain of both the assault frigate and the interceptor, perhaps doing neither function well. I see such a destroyer as a defacto interceptor killer. It is unfortunate that the current destroyer doesn't fill this roll well though, but it is only a tech1 ship I suppose.  It's not much fun, but I guess that makes enough sense to pass muster. |
 Lygos ISS Navy Task Force |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:01:00 -
[94] Edited by: Lygos on 10/04/2005 11:03:26 Well, I agree that there is no point in making the Destroyer substitute for an assault frigate. Hence, if we want the lowest common denominator setup, and less skill intensive, then we are probably looking for a frigate that hits close to as well as an assault frigate, but moves a good deal more quickly and with more nimbleness. But finally it has a reduced signature radius though little armor and unremarkable resistances. Hence, prey to cruisers and assault frigates (and torpendoes). If we do that though, it is impinging on the domain of both the assault frigate and the interceptor, perhaps doing neither function well. I see such a destroyer as a defacto interceptor killer. It is unfortunate that the current destroyer doesn't fill this roll well though, but it is only a tech1 ship I suppose. It's not much fun, but I guess that makes enough sense to pass muster. --- Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
 Max Payne |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:53:00 -
[95] I agree with previous posters that destroyers came a little bit too late and the role they tried to play was already taken by AF. As it is now I don't think tech 1 destroyers can be salvaged, they're good VS tech 1 ships of similar and smaller size but they can't compete with a T2 AF. What can be done in terms of survivability is to reduce their weight even further and make em way more agile than they're now (probably signature decrease too) and in terms of usefulness give em a special function. I can think of a very good one - bonus to decloaking range 5km per level - this way a pilot with a level 5 destroyer can protect the fleet from incoming stealth bombers and with their fragile hulls a destroyer can shoot them down with 7 well placed hits ... weren't destroyers used for defending againts submarines... btw I gather comparing the stealth bombers with submarines is way more acurate... fragile hulls , but pack quite a punch, enough to down a BS. |
 Max Payne |
Posted - 2005.04.10 11:53:00 -
[96] I agree with previous posters that destroyers came a little bit too late and the role they tried to play was already taken by AF. As it is now I don't think tech 1 destroyers can be salvaged, they're good VS tech 1 ships of similar and smaller size but they can't compete with a T2 AF. What can be done in terms of survivability is to reduce their weight even further and make em way more agile than they're now (probably signature decrease too) and in terms of usefulness give em a special function. I can think of a very good one - bonus to decloaking range 5km per level - this way a pilot with a level 5 destroyer can protect the fleet from incoming stealth bombers and with their fragile hulls a destroyer can shoot them down with 7 well placed hits ... weren't destroyers used for defending againts submarines... btw I gather comparing the stealth bombers with submarines is way more acurate... fragile hulls , but pack quite a punch, enough to down a BS. |
Tobiaz |
Posted - 2005.04.10 12:53:00 -
[97] Edited by: Tobiaz on 10/04/2005 13:11:19
Oh yeah, people we're in the presence of a genius! T2 guns and mods on a ship that gets hit like a cruiser but with the defences of a frigate.  If you have that much money to waste just buy a assault frigate and take on ravens. You'll lose a lot less money. Destroyers are meant for destroying T1 frigates using T1 equipment. Sadly pretty much anything can kill frigates just as easily, so destroyers are out of a job except for very cheap effective miners and level 2 agents. EDIT: Destroyers do have purposes though. One for example is being the damagedealer in a fleet of expendable ships, where the T1 frigs do the tackling and jamming. |
 Tobiaz Spacerats |
Posted - 2005.04.10 12:53:00 -
[98] Edited by: Tobiaz on 10/04/2005 13:11:19
Oh yeah, people we're in the presence of a genius! T2 guns and mods on a ship that gets hit like a cruiser but with the defences of a frigate. If you have that much money to waste just buy a assault frigate and take on ravens. You'll lose a lot less money. Destroyers are meant for destroying T1 frigates using T1 equipment. Sadly pretty much anything can kill frigates just as easily, so destroyers are out of a job except for very cheap effective miners and level 2 agents. EDIT: Destroyers do have purposes though. One for example is being the damagedealer in a fleet of expendable ships, where the T1 frigs do the tackling and jamming. |
 Gariuys |
Posted - 2005.04.10 13:22:00 -
[99]
But does this mean you have to upgrade a T1 ship class to compete with the t2 ship classes that are out there? IMHO hell no. Main things of a destroyer are volley damage and tracking. All things considering assault frigates do their job better, but they're t2. As a step in between I think destroyers and battlecruisers do their job nicely, if you let that job be stepping stones between frig and cruiser and cruiser and battleship. Not if you think their job is to compete with t2 ships that are also out. A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
 Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.10 13:22:00 -
[100]
But does this mean you have to upgrade a T1 ship class to compete with the t2 ship classes that are out there? IMHO hell no. Main things of a destroyer are volley damage and tracking. All things considering assault frigates do their job better, but they're t2. As a step in between I think destroyers and battlecruisers do their job nicely, if you let that job be stepping stones between frig and cruiser and cruiser and battleship. Not if you think their job is to compete with t2 ships that are also out. |
 Letifer Deus |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:05:00 -
[101] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:53
So take off the T2 weapons. I merely put them on to show the possibilities. And just because it is a T1 ship does not mean it can't use T2 weapons (though admittedly an unlikely choice.) Only thing destroyers should get is sig. radius reduction. I am the OG PIIIIIMP |
 Letifer Deus The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:05:00 -
[102] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 10/04/2005 14:06:53
So take off the T2 weapons. I merely put them on to show the possibilities. And just because it is a T1 ship does not mean it can't use T2 weapons (though admittedly an unlikely choice.) Only thing destroyers should get is sig. radius reduction. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
 KamikazeHamster |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:17:00 -
[103] Edited by: KamikazeHamster on 10/04/2005 14:21:39 Someone said this: the trick would be to not make ships in lower tiers obsolte this go round, leave the basic destroyer as "the anti frig" then add the next tier with a different niche, perhaps a gunboat capable of being a threat to cruisers, though soft yet agile. A well equipped destroyer will be a threat to cruisers. My Cormorant is edit: I'm quite happy with the destroyers as they are to be honest. I think CCP did a good job on them. I don't find CPU or PG a real problem (nothing a MAPC can't sort out) |
 KamikazeHamster |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:17:00 -
[104] Edited by: KamikazeHamster on 10/04/2005 14:21:39 Someone said this: the trick would be to not make ships in lower tiers obsolte this go round, leave the basic destroyer as "the anti frig" then add the next tier with a different niche, perhaps a gunboat capable of being a threat to cruisers, though soft yet agile. A well equipped destroyer will be a threat to cruisers. My Cormorant is edit: I'm quite happy with the destroyers as they are to be honest. I think CCP did a good job on them. I don't find CPU or PG a real problem (nothing a MAPC can't sort out) |
 Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:29:00 -
[105] Edited by: Alexi Borizkova on 10/04/2005 14:30:40
As "someone" I figure I should respond... Yes, I'm sure you are, I have no doubt of it in fact. The rules of the game more than allow for that. It just bothers me a bit that little guns tear through the armor and shields of capital ships, and that it would seem far more dramatic and appropriate if it was a single(or pair) of large guns on the ship doing the lion's share of the damage. At least to me in my mind's eye, that is. [EDIT] I am as well quite contented with the destroyers as is, the yare damn fine ships, and a welcoem addition to any fleet or group. Fitting is fine and dandy for me as well, but as you pointed out takes some moderately high skills. I have often told people in various default corps that the destroyer is NOT a tier IV frigate, it is NOT the step between frigate and cruiser, but a whole new spur of ship training all it's own, and requires skills on par with an elite frigate to use to it's full potential(yes, with suboptimal skill it is a useful good ship, but can never truly be it' best without uber{as compared to new players} skills). I like the basic Destroyers jsut fine as they are, but would like to see an ECM specialist, a communications specialist(a kind of wee support ship), a long range tackler(bonus to webs and disruptor rang,e anyone?) and otehr roles that would be nice to have i na fleet but are not nice to lose big heavy ships to fill. However this is all in a perfect world(to me) where every corp doesn't jsut say "why not send em out in a battleship, it isn't like our hangar doesn't look liek the fight club in the old test server" as it seems to be now. a 1-2m isk investmetn for a specialized role ship is not bad, and if the skills were kept to what the yare now(multiple level III and IV skills, isntead of a few level Vs) to fly, it gives low to mid level players soemthign worthwhiel to do i nfleet iwthout puttign all their resources in one ship that is doomed to die. |
 Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.10 14:29:00 -
[106] Edited by: Alexi Borizkova on 10/04/2005 14:30:40
As "someone" I figure I should respond... Yes, I'm sure you are, I have no doubt of it in fact. The rules of the game more than allow for that. It just bothers me a bit that little guns tear through the armor and shields of capital ships, and that it would seem far more dramatic and appropriate if it was a single(or pair) of large guns on the ship doing the lion's share of the damage. At least to me in my mind's eye, that is. [EDIT] I am as well quite contented with the destroyers as is, the yare **** fine ships, and a welcoem addition to any fleet or group. Fitting is fine and dandy for me as well, but as you pointed out takes some moderately high skills. I have often told people in various default corps that the destroyer is NOT a tier IV frigate, it is NOT the step between frigate and cruiser, but a whole new spur of ship training all it's own, and requires skills on par with an elite frigate to use to it's full potential(yes, with suboptimal skill it is a useful good ship, but can never truly be it' best without uber{as compared to new players} skills). I like the basic Destroyers jsut fine as they are, but would like to see an ECM specialist, a communications specialist(a kind of wee support ship), a long range tackler(bonus to webs and disruptor rang,e anyone?) and otehr roles that would be nice to have i na fleet but are not nice to lose big heavy ships to fill. However this is all in a perfect world(to me) where every corp doesn't jsut say "why not send em out in a battleship, it isn't like our hangar doesn't look liek the fight club in the old test server" as it seems to be now. a 1-2m isk investmetn for a specialized role ship is not bad, and if the skills were kept to what the yare now(multiple level III and IV skills, isntead of a few level Vs) to fly, it gives low to mid level players soemthign worthwhiel to do i nfleet iwthout puttign all their resources in one ship that is doomed to die. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
James Draekn |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:30:00 -
[107] Whats even worse about the Destroyer is that as soon as you put a MWD on it (the only way to make it more survivable on the Battlefield) its signature radius jumps to the size of a Battleship.  One of the bonuses this ship should have added is a decrease to its signature radius per level as well as no increase to signature radius for MWD. If I'm correct I think that signature radius is part of the chance to hit computation. The only way this ship will survive in combat is to avoid being hit as much as possible. CCP needs to turn this ship into a Heavy Interceptor/Assault Frig eater. If the signature radius didn't go up after installing a MWD this ship might just pull that role off, its fast, small and packs a punch. Now if they could just get it to take a few as well, or give it the ability to avoid them. |
 James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:30:00 -
[108] Whats even worse about the Destroyer is that as soon as you put a MWD on it (the only way to make it more survivable on the Battlefield) its signature radius jumps to the size of a Battleship. One of the bonuses this ship should have added is a decrease to its signature radius per level as well as no increase to signature radius for MWD. If I'm correct I think that signature radius is part of the chance to hit computation. The only way this ship will survive in combat is to avoid being hit as much as possible. CCP needs to turn this ship into a Heavy Interceptor/Assault Frig eater. If the signature radius didn't go up after installing a MWD this ship might just pull that role off, its fast, small and packs a punch. Now if they could just get it to take a few as well, or give it the ability to avoid them. |
Famine Aligher'ri |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:38:00 -
[109] New ECM comming out. Destroyers will be able to jam frigates, cruisers and maybe a battleship given V EW skills to all. Destroyers will become a better ship due to the new unbalanced ECM changes. That's if the current ECM on the test server is the same changes in the new patch. So, all of you should have no problems strapping on 1 racial jammer and jamming people well. If anything, was to change. I would be in support of upping the "Amarr" current med slots. Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig- |
 Famine Aligher'ri V i L e |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:38:00 -
[110] New ECM comming out. Destroyers will be able to jam frigates, cruisers and maybe a battleship given V EW skills to all. Destroyers will become a better ship due to the new unbalanced ECM changes. That's if the current ECM on the test server is the same changes in the new patch. So, all of you should have no problems strapping on 1 racial jammer and jamming people well. If anything, was to change. I would be in support of upping the "Amarr" current med slots. Vile - Recruiting Pirates |
 MaiLina KaTar |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:42:00 -
[111] Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 11/04/2005 11:43:16 Let's see how they pan out after the EW & missile overhaul. Mai's Idealog |
 MaiLina KaTar Aliastra |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:42:00 -
[112] Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 11/04/2005 11:43:16 Let's see how they pan out after the EW & missile overhaul. Mai's Idealog |
Hotice |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:58:00 -
[113] Destroyers need longer target lock range. Instead of 24km, it should be around 35km lock range. In many case, guns on destroyer can shoot a lot further than the lock range. Also, what is with the single midslot for amarr destroyer? There should at least 2 midslots for that ship. Destroyer should be able to mount 2-3 cruiser size guns for long range attack however with less shield/armor, after all, it does have the room for them. Destroyer should also be missile defense ship just in real life. If nothing else, destroyer should have more midslots than frigates for EW. Over all, I think destroyer should be made as close air defense ship against all frigate size ships and drones. However, as where it stands, cruiser can do it better and last longer. I fly both minmatar and amarr destroyers. They are fun little ship to play around but cannot really do anything serious. I used them to assiste friends to do lvl 4 missions. Frankly, I had to fly back and get rupture/maller. A ship that is designed to take out small ships/drones cannot really get the job done. |
 Hotice |
Posted - 2005.04.11 11:58:00 -
[114] Destroyers need longer target lock range. Instead of 24km, it should be around 35km lock range. In many case, guns on destroyer can shoot a lot further than the lock range. Also, what is with the single midslot for amarr destroyer? There should at least 2 midslots for that ship. Destroyer should be able to mount 2-3 cruiser size guns for long range attack however with less shield/armor, after all, it does have the room for them. Destroyer should also be missile defense ship just in real life. If nothing else, destroyer should have more midslots than frigates for EW. Over all, I think destroyer should be made as close air defense ship against all frigate size ships and drones. However, as where it stands, cruiser can do it better and last longer. I fly both minmatar and amarr destroyers. They are fun little ship to play around but cannot really do anything serious. I used them to assiste friends to do lvl 4 missions. Frankly, I had to fly back and get rupture/maller. A ship that is designed to take out small ships/drones cannot really get the job done. |
Gariuys |
Posted - 2005.04.11 12:50:00 -
[115] cruiser guns? on something that's obviously ment to put it's firepower on small targets? Missile defense ship? EW platform If people would stop trying to get ships changed into something they're not but focus on using them what they're made for 50% of the posts in this forum would dissapear. And cruisers using frig guns are indeed not that far behind destroyers in damage, but they ARE behind, while costing more etc. etc. for more survivability assuming that that is true, and I think it's not. Perhaps a cruiser is better at assisting at lvl 4 missions, but saying destroyers cannot do the job of taking out small targets is bull****. A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.11 12:50:00 -
[116] cruiser guns? on something that's obviously ment to put it's firepower on small targets? Missile defense ship? EW platform If people would stop trying to get ships changed into something they're not but focus on using them what they're made for 50% of the posts in this forum would dissapear. And cruisers using frig guns are indeed not that far behind destroyers in damage, but they ARE behind, while costing more etc. etc. for more survivability assuming that that is true, and I think it's not. Perhaps a cruiser is better at assisting at lvl 4 missions, but saying destroyers cannot do the job of taking out small targets is bull****. |
Famine Aligher'ri |
Posted - 2005.04.11 13:18:00 -
[117] Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 13:19:47
I've killed a lot of destroyers in pvp. I find them very good on damage however, they still have a hard time hitting someone with agility that doesn't just orbit. Remember these are anti-frig ships. You know how hard it is to hit someone who is swooping in and out your turrent range? However, the new EW will add support to either A) Draw a frig closer or B) Stop damage all together. So yes "Amarr" does need another mid slot. Don't understand why it only has 1. Just a thought. Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig- |
Famine Aligher'ri V i L e |
Posted - 2005.04.11 13:18:00 -
[118] Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 13:19:47
I've killed a lot of destroyers in pvp. I find them very good on damage however, they still have a hard time hitting someone with agility that doesn't just orbit. Remember these are anti-frig ships. You know how hard it is to hit someone who is swooping in and out your turrent range? However, the new EW will add support to either A) Draw a frig closer or B) Stop damage all together. So yes "Amarr" does need another mid slot. Don't understand why it only has 1. Just a thought. Vile - Recruiting Pirates |
 Gariuys |
Posted - 2005.04.11 14:14:00 -
[119]
Destoyers aren't EW ships and if there's one race that is the absolute worst at EW it's amarr, don't see why this would be different for their destroyer. And they don't need webbers or scramblers for frig destruction. And while you might indeed miss a couple of times, this doesn't change the fact that of anything using turrets destroyers are the best of making a shot stick on a frig. Personally I don't have much trouble getting those hits to land, fast base speed frigs using a afterburner are hardest, but still doable. A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2005.04.11 14:14:00 -
[120]
Destoyers aren't EW ships and if there's one race that is the absolute worst at EW it's amarr, don't see why this would be different for their destroyer. And they don't need webbers or scramblers for frig destruction. And while you might indeed miss a couple of times, this doesn't change the fact that of anything using turrets destroyers are the best of making a shot stick on a frig. Personally I don't have much trouble getting those hits to land, fast base speed frigs using a afterburner are hardest, but still doable. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: Letifer Deus| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,41s, ref 20250724/0630 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF |
| 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. |