|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 James Draekn    |
Posted - 2005.04.08 20:50:00 -
[1] 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????? |
 James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.08 20:50:00 -
[2] 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????? |
 benwallace |
Posted - 2005.04.08 20:54:00 -
[3] bc are 2 classes higher than destroyers don't be a n00b they are the way they are -------------------------- |
 benwallace Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition |
Posted - 2005.04.08 20:54:00 -
[4] bc are 2 classes higher than destroyers don't be a n00b they are the way they are |
 James Draekn |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:04:00 -
[5] I'm not suggesting turning the destroyer into a Battlecruiser! I'm suggesting that CCP should make the destroyer the halfway point (Hitpoint wise) between Frigs and Cruisers. Kind of how the Battlecruiser is the halfway point between Cruiser and Battleship. Look at the hitpoints on the ship then respond. And yes it'll make it harder to kill for you Inty and assault frig pilots, but not by much. I'm only suggesting an addition of 150-200 hitpoint on average. |
James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:04:00 -
[6] I'm not suggesting turning the destroyer into a Battlecruiser! I'm suggesting that CCP should make the destroyer the halfway point (Hitpoint wise) between Frigs and Cruisers. Kind of how the Battlecruiser is the halfway point between Cruiser and Battleship. Look at the hitpoints on the ship then respond. And yes it'll make it harder to kill for you Inty and assault frig pilots, but not by much. I'm only suggesting an addition of 150-200 hitpoint on average. |
 Damien Vox |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:10:00 -
[7] I dunno...inty pilots already hate my destroyer and it only carries one weapon.  |
 Damien Vox Minmatar Guiding Hand Social Club |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:10:00 -
[8] I dunno...inty pilots already hate my destroyer and it only carries one weapon. |
Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:13:00 -
[9] I'd like to see tier II and tier III destroyers and Battlecruisers introduced rather than see the existing ones "beefed up". It'd be rather interestign to have a destroyer with a cruiser weapon or two as main armament and some backup guns as well. Of course that would likely be the tier III one... 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. |
 Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:13:00 -
[10] I'd like to see tier II and tier III destroyers and Battlecruisers introduced rather than see the existing ones "beefed up". It'd be rather interestign to have a destroyer with a cruiser weapon or two as main armament and some backup guns as well. Of course that would likely be the tier III one... 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. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
Caldorous |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:29:00 -
[11]
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  ----------------------------- 2005.03.13 01:11:29combatYour 350mm Railgun I perfectly strikes Asteroid (Veldspar), wrecking for 0.0 damage. |
 Caldorous Gallente |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:29:00 -
[12]
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 ----------------------------- |
 Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:33:00 -
[13] Well, that's like saying people need a tech II velator... the brutix just plain out needs some more Grid and CPU, at least the way I look at it. |
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.08 21:33:00 -
[14] Well, that's like saying people need a tech II velator... the brutix just plain out needs some more Grid and CPU, at least the way I look at it. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
 Bazman |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:04:00 -
[15] Remove the Destroyers ROF penalty, and they will finally be worth something |
 ZaKma |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:04:00 -
[16] i think he means the way a destoryer isto a frigate as a battlecruiser isto a cruiser as in in proportion they are way of, where as a destroyer is olny a tad better than a frigate a battlecruiser is a rather large amount better than a cruiser |
 ZaKma The Scope |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:04:00 -
[17] i think he means the way a destoryer isto a frigate as a battlecruiser isto a cruiser as in in proportion they are way of, where as a destroyer is olny a tad better than a frigate a battlecruiser is a rather large amount better than a cruiser --- I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar. |
 Bazman Caldari Shinra Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:04:00 -
[18] Remove the Destroyers ROF penalty, and they will finally be worth something ----- OMG READ TUXFORD!!!1 |
Gierling |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:05:00 -
[19] I bet you money the tier II gallente destroyer will look like this. http://img221.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img221&image=gallentedestroyer0ls.jpg Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
 Gierling Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:05:00 -
[20] I bet you money the tier II gallente destroyer will look like this. http://img221.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img221&image=gallentedestroyer0ls.jpg |
mavskji |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:24:00 -
[21] More ships would be nice but I doubt new Destoyers or BCs are on CCPs list of priorities. I agree the Brutix could do with a small boost. I would also like to see the Brutix & Cyclone bonuses changed. I see them as more offensive ships, they would be more fun if they had an offensive bonus instead of the armour/shield bonus. Tracking or something would be nice. |
 mavskji Caldari |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:24:00 -
[22] More ships would be nice but I doubt new Destoyers or BCs are on CCPs list of priorities. I agree the Brutix could do with a small boost. I would also like to see the Brutix & Cyclone bonuses changed. I see them as more offensive ships, they would be more fun if they had an offensive bonus instead of the armour/shield bonus. Tracking or something would be nice. |
 General Murder |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:33:00 -
[23] The main problem with destroyers is they have no funktion. Because every BS with torps can kill frigs much better the destroyers (and anything else  Only when destroyers are much better at frig killing as any other ship they will see use in fleets. |
 General Murder |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:33:00 -
[24] The main problem with destroyers is they have no funktion. Because every BS with torps can kill frigs much better the destroyers (and anything else Only when destroyers are much better at frig killing as any other ship they will see use in fleets. |
Branmuffin |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:34:00 -
[25] Get rid of the ROF penalty and all of a sudden the destroyers would be VERY well liked. A catalyst with ions damage mods and no ROF penalty would put out enough DPS to put a solid dent in a Battleship. |
 Branmuffin |
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:34:00 -
[26] Get rid of the ROF penalty and all of a sudden the destroyers would be VERY well liked. A catalyst with ions damage mods and no ROF penalty would put out enough DPS to put a solid dent in a Battleship. |
Dakath |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:19:00 -
[27] Right now I mostly use destroyers (Caldari or Minmatar) for light cargo running. Fix that ROF and maybe some 1 more low slot on the Cormorant and 1 more mid slot on the Thrasher and they would be very good indeed.  I chopped Bunny into little pieces. \ ( )( X > ) ( .x ) / < _ Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Sic Transit Gloria Bunny! |
 Dakath |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:19:00 -
[28] Right now I mostly use destroyers (Caldari or Minmatar) for light cargo running. Fix that ROF and maybe some 1 more low slot on the Cormorant and 1 more mid slot on the Thrasher and they would be very good indeed. |
 Lilane |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:27:00 -
[29] Actualy, 2 less high slots and no RoF penalty, keeoing the same CPU/Grid would be a quite simple change but would still make them intersting! And perhaps one more low/mid slot would make them great... |
 Lilane Gallente Elegance Tau Ceti Federation |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:27:00 -
[30] Actualy, 2 less high slots and no RoF penalty, keeoing the same CPU/Grid would be a quite simple change but would still make them intersting! And perhaps one more low/mid slot would make them great... Dark side of Elegance. |
 Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:46:00 -
[31] Yes, but too great, perhaps. I just wouldrather see tier II and III Destys instead of boosting the tier I ones to such a degree. As for the defensive bonii on BC... It might be nicer if it was to resistance instead of cycle time, that was my main beef with the brutix's bonus. (That and I think Thorax and Brutix should swap drone bay) |
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:46:00 -
[32] Yes, but too great, perhaps. I just wouldrather see tier II and III Destys instead of boosting the tier I ones to such a degree. As for the defensive bonii on BC... It might be nicer if it was to resistance instead of cycle time, that was my main beef with the brutix's bonus. (That and I think Thorax and Brutix should swap drone bay) In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
Ghostfire |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:33:00 -
[33] Destroyers were designed to kill frigates and thats exactly what they do so no changes are really needed. |
Selim |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:33:00 -
[34]
No, that would make destroyers outdamage cruisers...  |
 Ghostfire |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:33:00 -
[35] Destroyers were designed to kill frigates and thats exactly what they do so no changes are really needed. |
 Selim Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:33:00 -
[36]
No, that would make destroyers outdamage cruisers... |
Rexthor Hammerfists |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:39:00 -
[37] fix the cruisers, let the destroyers as they are |
 Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:39:00 -
[38] fix the cruisers, let the destroyers as they are - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe. |
Niko Succorso |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:50:00 -
[39] Cruisers could do with a bit of love, but I'm agreeing with the idea of tier 2 and 3 destroyers. We've got them for frigates and cruisers, and they work just fine. It's an add, not a nerf - plus point. The devs get to add racial piloting skills, another ISK & timesink, so a plus on their side. It'd add more variety - who thinks that's not a plus? ROF penalty - I say keep that. Destroyers get to mount the most guns, so it seems fair, plus the skill goes to counteract it some in DOT terms. Heck, if you're looking at it statisically, 8 guns at -25% ROF is equivalent to 6 guns at 100%. Side note - I mentally categorise ships into light, medium/standard, and heavy based on skill requirement. Anyone else do this? __________________ Interstellar joy-rider |
 Niko Succorso Red Dwarf Mining Corps |
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:50:00 -
[40] Cruisers could do with a bit of love, but I'm agreeing with the idea of tier 2 and 3 destroyers. We've got them for frigates and cruisers, and they work just fine. It's an add, not a nerf - plus point. The devs get to add racial piloting skills, another ISK & timesink, so a plus on their side. It'd add more variety - who thinks that's not a plus? ROF penalty - I say keep that. Destroyers get to mount the most guns, so it seems fair, plus the skill goes to counteract it some in DOT terms. Heck, if you're looking at it statisically, 8 guns at -25% ROF is equivalent to 6 guns at 100%. Side note - I mentally categorise ships into light, medium/standard, and heavy based on skill requirement. Anyone else do this? |
 Sadist |
Posted - 2005.04.09 02:04:00 -
[41] Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 02:09:45
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. About destroyers...they need a slots overhaul...I mean 8 slots for a small ship? And their other slots are really gimped. A battlecruiser is somewhere inbetween a cruiser and a BS, but a destroyer...well, its more like a step sideways, really. Both, bc and destroyers, however do poorly in PvP, because, there are 1. Intys/Assault ships, which can beat the living crap out of any tech 1 ship, smaller than a BC. 2. HAC, which can beat the crap out of everything except BS. 3. BS, which...well you get the idea. People, who fly dessies usually dont PvP in the first place, therefore they have no niche in the pvp lounge for themselves. Because there are already ships that perform better in every way. A slight hp boost isnt going to change anything really. _______________________________________________ |
 Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities |
Posted - 2005.04.09 02:04:00 -
[42] Edited by: Sadist on 09/04/2005 02:09:45
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. About destroyers...they need a slots overhaul...I mean 8 slots for a small ship? And their other slots are really gimped. A battlecruiser is somewhere inbetween a cruiser and a BS, but a destroyer...well, its more like a step sideways, really. Both, bc and destroyers, however do poorly in PvP, because, there are 1. Intys/Assault ships, which can beat the living crap out of any tech 1 ship, smaller than a BC. 2. HAC, which can beat the crap out of everything except BS. 3. BS, which...well you get the idea. People, who fly dessies usually dont PvP in the first place, therefore they have no niche in the pvp lounge for themselves. Because there are already ships that perform better in every way. A slight hp boost isnt going to change anything really. тттттттттттт
|
James Draekn |
Posted - 2005.04.09 04:36:00 -
[43] It would be great if CCP added T2 Destroyers as a counter to assault frigs but they would first have to fix the current Destroyers on the market, especially if they hope to do the T2 varients right!!! T2 Destroyers would be a great add to fleet battles if they were introduced. |
James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.09 04:36:00 -
[44] It would be great if CCP added T2 Destroyers as a counter to assault frigs but they would first have to fix the current Destroyers on the market, especially if they hope to do the T2 varients right!!! T2 Destroyers would be a great add to fleet battles if they were introduced. |
Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.09 05:15:00 -
[45] 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. |
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.09 05:15:00 -
[46] 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. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
 Isonkon Serikain |
Posted - 2005.04.09 06:10:00 -
[47] this is why a lot of the t1 stuff was nerfed, so that t2 ships could look to be worthwhile... Why spend 20 mil on a wolf when you could hook up a rupture to fly 3km/sec and fire heavy missiles? Beefing up the destroyers will cause others to complain about, say, beefing up interceptors or other stuff to "balance things out" |
 Isonkon Serikain Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion |
Posted - 2005.04.09 06:10:00 -
[48] this is why a lot of the t1 stuff was nerfed, so that t2 ships could look to be worthwhile... Why spend 20 mil on a wolf when you could hook up a rupture to fly 3km/sec and fire heavy missiles? Beefing up the destroyers will cause others to complain about, say, beefing up interceptors or other stuff to "balance things out" Pity the fool |
 Lygos |
Posted - 2005.04.09 07:05:00 -
[49] The tech2 ships will be interesting, but I was always hoping the ship would be vulnerable mostly to cruisers, battlecruisers, assault frigs and HACs. They are still kind of pointless so long as battleships can hit everything except perhaps as secondary battleship escorts.. Even the tech1 version of destroyers should be a genuine threat to interceptors currently. There does seem to be a gap where tech2 destroyers should be.. but what role should a tech2 destroyer occupy that a tech1 destroyer can't fill in? A tech2 frigate, unlike a tech2 cruiser, isn't just "more of the same." It should attain a specialized role and as far as I see it, and destroyers already have, or are supposed to have, this. I believe most people regard the destroyer as being largely incompetent against anything but a tech1 frigate at the moment. Perhaps Destroyer IIs could get the ability to mount 1 or 2 assault missile launchers if small missiles were ever fixed. Somehow I think they are just going to follow the assault frigate development at this pace, i.e. slower and with more range and maybe some more HP. We can ruminate about slots all day, but ultimately it is the boosts that define the purpose of a ship. Perhaps 5% accelerated locking speed per level would be a good one. I'd like to see it get away from the generic damage boost. The current accuracy boost should be plenty in that field using frigate sized weapons unless they roll out a microdrone swarm. How about a shrinking signature radius? |
 Lygos ISS Navy Task Force |
Posted - 2005.04.09 07:05:00 -
[50] The tech2 ships will be interesting, but I was always hoping the ship would be vulnerable mostly to cruisers, battlecruisers, assault frigs and HACs. They are still kind of pointless so long as battleships can hit everything except perhaps as secondary battleship escorts.. Even the tech1 version of destroyers should be a genuine threat to interceptors currently. There does seem to be a gap where tech2 destroyers should be.. but what role should a tech2 destroyer occupy that a tech1 destroyer can't fill in? A tech2 frigate, unlike a tech2 cruiser, isn't just "more of the same." It should attain a specialized role and as far as I see it, and destroyers already have, or are supposed to have, this. I believe most people regard the destroyer as being largely incompetent against anything but a tech1 frigate at the moment. Perhaps Destroyer IIs could get the ability to mount 1 or 2 assault missile launchers if small missiles were ever fixed. Somehow I think they are just going to follow the assault frigate development at this pace, i.e. slower and with more range and maybe some more HP. We can ruminate about slots all day, but ultimately it is the boosts that define the purpose of a ship. Perhaps 5% accelerated locking speed per level would be a good one. I'd like to see it get away from the generic damage boost. The current accuracy boost should be plenty in that field using frigate sized weapons unless they roll out a microdrone swarm. How about a shrinking signature radius? --- Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Slithereen |
Posted - 2005.04.09 07:24:00 -
[51] A minor tweak I guess. A small hull, armor and shield HP increase. A slight sig reduction. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius. |
 Slithereen Amarr |
Posted - 2005.04.09 07:24:00 -
[52] A minor tweak I guess. A small hull, armor and shield HP increase. A slight sig reduction. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius. |
James Draekn |
Posted - 2005.04.09 11:17:00 -
[53] That is all I'm asking for, more HP's. Nothing extreme just something that can let the Destroyer hang in there a while longer during fleet engagements, and support their Battleship allies against frigs. Although If they did do tech T2's of this type they would be a assualt frigs worst nightmare. |
James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.09 11:17:00 -
[54] That is all I'm asking for, more HP's. Nothing extreme just something that can let the Destroyer hang in there a while longer during fleet engagements, and support their Battleship allies against frigs. Although If they did do tech T2's of this type they would be a assualt frigs worst nightmare. |
Bazman |
Posted - 2005.04.09 12:09:00 -
[55]
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 |
Bazman Caldari Shinra Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.04.09 12:09:00 -
[56]
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 ----- OMG READ TUXFORD!!!1 |
Calyn |
Posted - 2005.04.09 13:26:00 -
[57]
Couldn't agree more. _________________________________________________ War transcends all barriers of species, race, religion, and civilization. |
 Calyn Amarr |
Posted - 2005.04.09 13:26:00 -
[58]
Couldn't agree more. _________________________________________________ War transcends all barriers of species, race, religion, and civilization. |
Sunflare |
Posted - 2005.04.09 14:42:00 -
[59]
Agreed, tier 2 and 3 would be awsome. Maybe tier 2 = +1 slot (med/low) slightly increased hp, and only -20% rof (or 5 guns no rof penalty) Tier 3 = +2 (med/low) highest hp, and only -15% rof (or only 6guns with no rof penalty) |
 Sunflare Gallente Thundercats |
Posted - 2005.04.09 14:42:00 -
[60]
Agreed, tier 2 and 3 would be awsome. Maybe tier 2 = +1 slot (med/low) slightly increased hp, and only -20% rof (or 5 guns no rof penalty) Tier 3 = +2 (med/low) highest hp, and only -15% rof (or only 6guns with no rof penalty) |
 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
|
DrunkenOne |
Posted - 2005.04.09 16:26:00 -
[63]
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]
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. |
 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. тттттттттттт
|
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
|
Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.04.09 19:05:00 -
[75]
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]
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
|
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 |
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. |
Famine Aligher'ri |
Posted - 2005.04.11 16:07:00 -
[121] If the ECM changes stay the same like on the test server. You only need 1 jammer II with supporting skills to jam a Battleship at random. That's a BS, think of how well it will do with Frigates... 1 non-racial jam, amarr destroyer jammed a Battleship. Group of destroyers with EW, will be able to throw down like crazy. Anyways, you lack any real support if you don't use good EW defense. Sorry but you just die, no matter how many guns you have. Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig- |
Famine Aligher'ri V i L e |
Posted - 2005.04.11 16:07:00 -
[122] If the ECM changes stay the same like on the test server. You only need 1 jammer II with supporting skills to jam a Battleship at random. That's a BS, think of how well it will do with Frigates... 1 non-racial jam, amarr destroyer jammed a Battleship. Group of destroyers with EW, will be able to throw down like crazy. Anyways, you lack any real support if you don't use good EW defense. Sorry but you just die, no matter how many guns you have. Vile - Recruiting Pirates |
James Draekn |
Posted - 2005.04.11 18:28:00 -
[123] Another option is to make all destroyers have 6 med and 6 low slots. Creating basically a stackable ship capable of being properly tanked if you really want to. If CCP leaves the CPU and Powergrid alone you could still create a fast tankable ship with awesome cap regen capablities. that is still in the heavy frigate class. |
James Draekn X.E.N.O. Breidablik |
Posted - 2005.04.11 18:28:00 -
[124] Another option is to make all destroyers have 6 med and 6 low slots. Creating basically a stackable ship capable of being properly tanked if you really want to. If CCP leaves the CPU and Powergrid alone you could still create a fast tankable ship with awesome cap regen capablities. that is still in the heavy frigate class. |
Alexi Borizkova |
Posted - 2005.04.11 19:28:00 -
[125]
I said a new class of destroyers of tier II or III that used cruiser guns, not alterign the existing destroyers, I like them fine as is. |
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions |
Posted - 2005.04.11 19:28:00 -
[126]
I said a new class of destroyers of tier II or III that used cruiser guns, not alterign the existing destroyers, I like them fine as is. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU. |
Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.04.11 19:33:00 -
[127] Like so many have pointed out...... the Amarr destroyer (Coercer) is pretty much trash. It can't fit the heavier gun (beams) so it can only fit the weaker pulses and only 1 midlot means that it is complete trash. As it lacks any decent bonus (no damage, optimal, or falloff) it's limited to a roughly 15km range with Radio and no utility. The overall abundance of tech 2 frigs just shows the SCREAMING need for the release of Tech 2 Destroyers. Are they in the works? Are they planned? Does anyone know? Nyxus |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.04.11 19:33:00 -
[128] Like so many have pointed out...... the Amarr destroyer (Coercer) is pretty much trash. It can't fit the heavier gun (beams) so it can only fit the weaker pulses and only 1 midlot means that it is complete trash. As it lacks any decent bonus (no damage, optimal, or falloff) it's limited to a roughly 15km range with Radio and no utility. The overall abundance of tech 2 frigs just shows the SCREAMING need for the release of Tech 2 Destroyers. Are they in the works? Are they planned? Does anyone know? Nyxus
|
Famine Aligher'ri |
Posted - 2005.04.11 23:17:00 -
[129] Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 23:18:34
Latta [Multiple] - Are T2 versions of destroyers and battlecruisers planned? Oveur : Yes! Oveur : Not much more to say about them than that at this point :) Tomb : these ships are being planned for t2 versions but they might get special roles Tomb : me neither (Just incase you didn't see this) Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig- |
Famine Aligher'ri V i L e |
Posted - 2005.04.11 23:17:00 -
[130] Edited by: Famine Aligher''ri on 11/04/2005 23:18:34
Latta [Multiple] - Are T2 versions of destroyers and battlecruisers planned? Oveur : Yes! Oveur : Not much more to say about them than that at this point :) Tomb : these ships are being planned for t2 versions but they might get special roles Tomb : me neither (Just incase you didn't see this) Vile - Recruiting Pirates |
Sadist |
Posted - 2005.04.12 00:21:00 -
[131] I wonder what role would a Tech 2 battlecruiser get... Maybe something like a stealth bomber, only without cloak, and able to mount 2-3 citadel torp launchers  and getting bonuses to fittings and speed of torps.Bombardier class ftw.  Or an advanced drone ship? The possibilities are engless. _______________________________________________ |
Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities |
Posted - 2005.04.12 00:21:00 -
[132] I wonder what role would a Tech 2 battlecruiser get... Maybe something like a stealth bomber, only without cloak, and able to mount 2-3 citadel torp launchers and getting bonuses to fittings and speed of torps.Bombardier class ftw. Or an advanced drone ship? The possibilities are engless. тттттттттттт
|
Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.04.12 01:47:00 -
[133]
   <cheers crazily> I didnt see that Famine! Thank you! Hope springs eternal and all that.... I hope that they plan on releasing those puppies soon. Everyone likes new ships, and especially tech 2 ones. And in this case, tech 2 destroyers are severely needed. Nyxus |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.04.12 01:47:00 -
[134]
<cheers crazily> I didnt see that Famine! Thank you! Hope springs eternal and all that.... I hope that they plan on releasing those puppies soon. Everyone likes new ships, and especially tech 2 ones. And in this case, tech 2 destroyers are severely needed. Nyxus
|
 Murehk |
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:16:00 -
[135]
So you rekon that a dessy with maxed high slots and AB, web scram and 3ecm wouldnt be overpowered. I mean cmon, I can take cruisers with that but only ab, scram and 2 ecm. |
 Skawl GeoTech |
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:28:00 -
[136]
Holy necromancy batman! |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] | |
Originally by: Alexi Borizkova| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20250809/2126 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. |