| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Corey Grim
   |
Posted - 2005.08.21 11:57:00 -
[1]
i just want to know what ppl think their role would/should be?
I Would like to see that they are faster (read:more agile) with additional med slot and no ROF penalty or decreased ROF penalty (related to destroyer skill or frigate skill)... of course bonuses are race related also.
resistance imo should be as it is but it would be nice if they have more shield/armor/structure HP (not plenty just some) i see their place is taking enemy scouts out while they also can do scouting. also some bonus to mwd (smaler sig radius or smaler cap penalty) would be nice to have.
|
Klaryssa
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 12:45:00 -
[2]
Racial bonuses to things like webbers, nosferatu/neuts, scramblers etc. Theyre an anti-frig ship, so giving them the ability to hold and pound frigs would be good, while keeping them vulnerable to cruisers and other bigger ships.
|
J Ryan
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 12:57:00 -
[3]
Am I the only one who thinks an anti-stealth ship would be a good idea. Perhaps a module that can only fit on T2 Destroyers, that can uncloak stealth ships within a certain radius.
|
RedClaws
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 13:11:00 -
[4]
why would you like anti-stealth when the cloak itself it useless except on a covert ops (and that the only usefullness about it)
|
Taketa De
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 13:50:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Corey Grim
resistance imo should be as it is but it would be nice if they have more shield/armor/structure HP (not plenty just some) i see their place is taking enemy scouts out while they also can do scouting. also some bonus to mwd (smaler sig radius or smaler cap penalty) would be nice to have.
They are supposed to be anti-frig boats, so I would hope they can take out tech 2 frigs. Withouth higher resistances that would be impossible however.
|
Douglas McCracken
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 14:01:00 -
[6]
Think these would have been best as bombers to be honest, slow sluggish but deadly. Sadly they have already tried that and created stealth bombers, which suck.
|
Sarleena
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 14:23:00 -
[7]
I'd like to see covert assault ships. Blockade-runner resistance bonuses, substantial sensor recalibration time bonus, near-AF base resists, something that 2-3 can pop up and decimate a Tech-1 frig fleet, or take 1.5x or even twice their number of T2 frigs
ex bonuses:
per Destoryer skill level: +10% race's primary +5% race's secondary resists, Standard destroyer bonuses
per T2 Destroyer Skill Level: -15% sensor recalibration time, -92%to-100% cov ops cloak CPU usage.
leave them sluggish and with a large sig radius, and maybe lower their top speed a little bit, but give them a bit more hull/armor/shield, someone did the calculations on the % bonus that assault frigs got, I'd say they should get about 2/3 the % increase. It would be deadly against frigs, probably kill tech 1 cruisers, die hiedously to HACs and probably not fare too well against BSs either due to the large sig radius, low agility, and low speed.
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries in the oth |
dantes inferno
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 14:45:00 -
[8]
it would be nice to see more ew type bonuses ratehr the usual dmg/weapons..more rance on webbers, scramblers..more range/effectivnes on painters/nos..dampners/jammer bonuses have the tech 2 dd specilise in tackling.
we got af for dmg, hacs for dmg, i would imagines the tech 2 BC's to be used in fleet comand (as tech 1 have the bonus to use gang warfare mods), intys are good nippy ships which can be used for tackling but have no relevant bonuses. so a dedicated tackler would be nice.
_____
|
Plim
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 14:47:00 -
[9]
Destroyers, only good.
-----------------
|
Ceratin
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 14:57:00 -
[10]
What should t2 destroyers be?
Simple answer-Worth flying.
|
Edhel
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 15:39:00 -
[11]
i see destroyers are anti-tackling they take out fast t1 frigs and intys.. i don't see them as anti AF, then they'd be exactly like an AF except with more guns.. AF's are vulnerable enough to larger ships.
|
Rafein
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 16:42:00 -
[12]
a 2nd round of bonuses, another 7.5% tracking bonus, and a 5% damage bonus.
It won;t be that much more sturdy, but it can hit everything.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 16:44:00 -
[13]
A T2 destroyer should be the bane of the frigate blob.
--
Proud member of the [23].
Want your POS to make money? Call me up. I've designed POSs that make upwards of 50m a day. |
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 17:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Taketa De
Originally by: Corey Grim
resistance imo should be as it is but it would be nice if they have more shield/armor/structure HP (not plenty just some) i see their place is taking enemy scouts out while they also can do scouting. also some bonus to mwd (smaler sig radius or smaler cap penalty) would be nice to have.
They are supposed to be anti-frig boats, so I would hope they can take out tech 2 frigs. Withouth higher resistances that would be impossible however.
i kinda agree with this but i was hoping to see other solution than huge resistance bonuses. they should be about same level with AF imo so in 1v1 fight it would be evenly matched or mayby little to t2 destroyer advandage. It DEFINETLY should can kill t1 cruisers and make trouble for battlecruisers. but shouldnt be able to take HAC alone.
Quote:
leave them sluggish and with a large sig radius, and maybe lower their top speed a little bit, but give them a bit more hull/armor/shield,
i really dont think that it would be good idea to make them slow and sluggish they are supposed to kill frigates... right?... ok i dont want them to catch IC but still they have to had good (i mean very good) agility and little bit boosted speed compared t1 destroyers. if they have increased sig radius it would mean: T1 cruisers with med guns and there goes BOOM... not good.... i would like to see that T2 destroyers still uses small guns. Scouting and tacler killing should be their job
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 17:35:00 -
[15]
I decently setup Destroyer is nearly as good as an AF at handling 2 or 3 inties but they do take a lot of skills and you pretty much have to go for gank rather than tank.
I'd like to see T2 Destroyers given some powergrid love and some resistances love, of course, so we can get some variation on setup.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Ice Shard
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 17:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Ice Shard on 21/08/2005 17:49:53
there is currently no ship that is designed to kill ceptors, im hoping the t2 destroyer will be...
the annoying fleet orbitting one
|
Sarleena
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 18:38:00 -
[17]
hmm, maybe a 7.5% reduction in small *racial* turret signature resolution per level and up the tracking bonus to 15%/level? at level 5, the turret's sig res would be 25, and the inty's sig radius would be 26.25, so you've got a gun that will never miss the inty as long as it can track it, and the tracking speed bonus would mean that you're an inty's worst nightmare
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries in the oth |
Commander Zipsu
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 18:47:00 -
[18]
a good picture site what contains pictures of normal and T2 ships. click here!
|
Friehgt
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 19:00:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ice Shard
Edited by: Ice Shard on 21/08/2005 17:49:53
there is currently no ship that is designed to kill ceptors, im hoping the t2 destroyer will be...
the annoying fleet orbitting one
Assfrigs ???
|
CitzNo 097864
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 19:54:00 -
[20]
As a destroyer pilot I'd love to see a massive increase in speed and the firing rate penalty dropped. I wouldn't mind 8 midslots and maybe even no lows. (With the CPU to use them too)
|
Icarus Starkiller
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 20:23:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Icarus Starkiller on 21/08/2005 20:25:19
Originally by: Ice Shard
Edited by: Ice Shard on 21/08/2005 17:49:53
there is currently no ship that is designed to kill ceptors, im hoping the t2 destroyer will be...
the annoying fleet orbitting one
Hmmm.... 'designed'?
Try the Thrasher. Even with a modest kitup and no T2 weapons skills a Thrasher can shred inties in a heartbeat in a typical encounter (close range orbit). Sniper inties pwn it, but those are relatively rare, and a single weapon disruptor nullifies that advantage. A cormorant can be similarly fitted.
Also the new plated cruiser designs (1600mm plate & T2 frig guns) pwn 2 or 3 inties in a group, sometimes even a similar sized pack of AFs.
Inties are far from invulnerable to smartly outfitted dessies & T1 cruisers... or even T1 frigs depending on pilot ability & brains.
Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something. |
Xaat Xuun
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 23:06:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Xaat Xuun on 21/08/2005 23:12:02
Edited by: Xaat Xuun on 21/08/2005 23:11:28
well I have been thinking this one over. and here is my thoughts of 2 T2 destroyer's (would they be called Battle Destroyers ??)
EW bonus
1 extra slot for mid AND low
20 more points in the powergride (at least 20)
maybe a cap bonus, race related
race damage bonus
= = = = = =
T2 two-
more a escort role
Speed bonus
larger powergrid
no penalty for ROF
race damage bonus
|
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 23:24:00 -
[23]
More agile is out. They arn't supposed to be super-frigates. Their agility is fine.
All destroyers (even T1) do need the ability to web, though; only having the one medium slot is really far too limiting!
Destroyers are also excellent level 2 mission boats- they're faster than a cruiser, tougher + more firepower than a frigate, and have big enough cargo bays to carry a lot of loot.
I think a Tier 2 Destroyer should have extremely limited endurance (bad recharge on everything) but able to kick a whole lot of frigate butt in the meantime- AB in, web, blast, kill. A short range gank-boat.
T1 Cruisers should be able to kill T2 destroyers, though, barring huge inequalities in skill and equipment.
Before Destroyer balance can be sorted out, I think armor plate balance needs to be sorted out, though.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 23:36:00 -
[24]
Edited by: slip66 on 21/08/2005 23:43:02
Originally by: J Ryan
Am I the only one who thinks an anti-stealth ship would be a good idea. Perhaps a module that can only fit on T2 Destroyers, that can uncloak stealth ships within a certain radius.
nope I mentioned the same b4. Something that works like a sonar would be cool.
IMO they dont need any dmg, rof etc based upgrades. If they get those then they become slow intys or less tankable assaults. Give them more hp. This gives them a greater advantage over intys since the destroyers can do enough dmg to make a inty think twice atm. It also keeps them below the assault frigs with out the tanking ability.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.08.21 23:38:00 -
[25]
If your going to have the with AF resistances and more mid slots, they should be slot and have really big sig radius (IE over 200)
-----------------------------------------
wts all new "burberry" warp core stab II's |
PaulAtreides
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 00:02:00 -
[26]
I say exactly as they are now, 1 extra slot in the primary function area (amarr/gallente = low, caldari = med, minnie = mid/low), a bonus increase be it damage / resistances, and a slight increase in GP so we don't have to fit Micro Aux units to make the setup usefull.
Thanks.
|
Abe LeRoy
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 00:16:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Abe LeRoy on 22/08/2005 00:18:20
Originally by: J Ryan
Am I the only one who thinks an anti-stealth ship would be a good idea.
Nope 
For such a ship I'd like to see a "sonar" module that emits an omni directional wave out to a certain distance at regular intervals. Any cloaked unit within range of this sonar would be at risk of showing up on the DD pilot's HUD as well as on the HUDs of any gang members. The chances of a cloaked unit being detected would be calculated once per cycle and based on range; the closer, the better. If the sonar user "wins the lottery" for a given cycle and gets a hit, everybody in the gang can then lock on and go to work on the target. The cloaked starship pilot wouldn't know he was detected until he saw his vessel decloaked from all the target locks and the accompanying yellow and red brackets 
The sonar module itself, which would occupy a high slot, would require an exorbitant amount CPU and the tech II "sub hunting" DDs would include a fitting bonus for sonars.
"Love yer enemies and drive 'em nuts!"
-Brother Dave Gardner |
Nac MacFeegle
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 00:52:00 -
[28]
Hmm... if Destroyers are Anti-Frigate vessels, I would say that a T2 Destroyer would go after T2 frigates. Beefed-up defensive capability to match Assault Frigs, bonus for webbers to match Interceptors.
All opinions expressed in this message are personal and don't necessarily reflect those of the poster's corp or alliance. |
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 02:01:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Wild Rho on 22/08/2005 02:02:26
How about giving them unique modules such as bubble warp jammers and webbers.
I.e instead of locking when the modules are activated anything within their range is affected as if hit with a webber and/or scrambler unless they move out of range.
Would make them truely leathel against inties if they get close enough to get the inty inside the bubble and having some sitting close to friendly ships would make them very suitable for anti frig defence.
Heck there are options for all sorts of "bubble" modules they could use such as ew based ones as well etc.
Tech 2 destroyer skills could reduce fitting requirements and boost the bubbles ranges.
Would probably allow standard and advanced versions. Standard affects anyone in range whereas the advanced versions (tougher fitting requirements and more skill intesnsive) would have built in IFF abilites so gang and corpmates arent affected.
Would make them truely leathel frigate defences since they don't require target locks to mess up their targets, they just need to get in close enough.
|
The Slayer
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 02:20:00 -
[30]
One word - AEGIS
_______________________________________________________
|
Zezman
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 06:44:00 -
[31]
Depth Charges
Yes, you read that right, launchable bombs, that fly a specific range, a range you can set, in a straight unguided direction, and blow up at a specific time.
They would do radius damage similar to a smart bomb, decloaking and damaging any stealth vessels within their range, depending on how close the explosion is.
Downside would be the charges could damage any object, so should be used with care near structures and other players lest you be concordorkened.
Give the T2 Destroyer a special depth charge (or space charge, call it what you will) launcher, with charges. Give the launcher insane CPU need, but the T2 level would allow you to reduce that cpu need, allowing up to 5 charge launchers on the destroyer if you had level 5 in destroyer. Every level of destroyer would allow you to install another one, somehow.
And give other attribute bonuses, like slightly less 15% rof for guns, and slightly better resistances, and an extra mid slot per ship.
|
Idio T
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 07:37:00 -
[32]
A few have suggested, and I also agree,,, Unique electronic warfare ship items.
example: radius based temporary, stationary Webers that go off when a ship (any) passes threw it.
example: drone specific long range scouts.
example: Gatling Hybrid and Projectile turrets for defence.
my suggestions anyhow .
Frigate about it! |
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 09:02:00 -
[33]
Whatever CCP do to Tech II Destroyers will be useless coz as soon as you try pvp in it a BS will come along wiht a Heavy NOS and pwn u in the face.
Heavy NOS 4tw! |
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 09:07:00 -
[34]
...able to pwn assault frigs.
-Wrayeth
|
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 09:23:00 -
[35]
"patrol ships":
- increased agility / speed
- slightly increased resistances
- slightly more HP
- RoF penalty decreased (skillbased)
- optimal range bonus on webs and scramblers (skillbased)
"gunships":
- Skillbased small turret damage bonus
- Slightly increased optimal range bonus
- RoF penalty decreased per level of skill
- more slots, mainly med/low
"point defense ships":
- highly decreased agility / speed
- skillbased small turret damage bonus
- can aquire a lock and shoot down missiles
- damage bonus when firing on drones
- skillbased bonus for tracking disruptor optimal range
Probably ain't going to see ships like these in the game but IMO they'd rock 
Destroyers aren't useless btw... just have to use them properly 
Mai's Idealog |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 09:24:00 -
[36]
I'd like to see them used as a fleet defence ship.
New mod to auto-target non friendly (ie, not corp, gang or alliance)items, user selectable. User chooses "ammo" for the targeter which can be Missiles, Frigates (tech1), Interceptors, AF's, other Destroyers and Stealth Bombers.
If the auto-targeter is in use, targets can not be locked manually. Target priority can be assigned to automtically locked items.
When turrets firing at auto-targeted items they should get an big ROF & tracking bonus, but no damage increase - and range limited to the targeting sphere of the auto targeter.
No bonuses should apply if items are targetted manually.
What we then have is a point defence ship, able to engage multiple targets of the same type automatically.
______________________________________________
Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay. |
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 14:13:00 -
[37]
umm i was thinking about those point defense destroyer and honestly speaking i miss the point of their usefullnes...? someone plz tell me why we need one as we have other ships to manage to do that quite well imo (some hacs, snipe fitted BS¦s, BC¦s, and AF when correctly fitted is quite deadly to ceptor and other frigs if they are stupid enough to get too close etc etc.)
im not saying it would be bad idea i just want to know if they are really needed??
i think we need one ship type more that can do effective scouting and can blow small threads away quikly and so keep that main fleet unnoticed.
|
Sergeant Spot
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 16:06:00 -
[38]
As has been stated, they should be supreme Frig killers.
All T2 Destroyers should get a 10% per skill point tracking bonus as one of their T2 bonuses.
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 17:44:00 -
[39]
well, since these t1 dd's suck so bad at what they are sopost too do at frig control & since evryone is in a intersepter/elet frig now they better come out with elet dd's that can get the job done. the last dd's where a wast of time.i say give them more grid/cap so we can realy do somthing with them & give them a real fast fire rate.
|
Azuriel Talloth
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 17:46:00 -
[40]
Give them a webber fitting/usage bonus and maybe even Scrambler... idea being to immobilise multiple interceptors/frigates. Make them a bit tougher than the T1 version but not too much. No weapon bonus.
"Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory,
for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated." |
Zezman
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 17:49:00 -
[41]
T2 Destroyers should be to T2 Frigates
as T1 Destroyers are to T1 Frigates
T2 Destroyers should be anti-interceptor + anti-assault frigate
As well as anti-covert ops.
That means having resistances like assault ships, but with more guns, and faster rof.
|
Zandramus
|
Posted - 2005.08.22 17:56:00 -
[42]
Better resists, Bonus to webber range, Bonus to nos range, reduction in pg needed for nos. ie so a t2 could fit a med nos and a full complement of t2 guns and have the nos and webber be able to reach out 20-30k.
Ie a frigates worst nightmare.
Zandramus
Passes Now Available for 0.0 access
|
Ecnav
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 00:09:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Zezman
Depth Charges
Yes, you read that right, launchable bombs, that fly a specific range, a range you can set, in a straight unguided direction, and blow up at a specific time.
They would do radius damage similar to a smart bomb, decloaking and damaging any stealth vessels within their range, depending on how close the explosion is.
Downside would be the charges could damage any object, so should be used with care near structures and other players lest you be concordorkened.
Give the T2 Destroyer a special depth charge (or space charge, call it what you will) launcher, with charges. Give the launcher insane CPU need, but the T2 level would allow you to reduce that cpu need, allowing up to 5 charge launchers on the destroyer if you had level 5 in destroyer. Every level of destroyer would allow you to install another one, somehow.
And give other attribute bonuses, like slightly less 15% rof for guns, and slightly better resistances, and an extra mid slot per ship.
How about destroyers can use mines?
|
Sarleena
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 01:42:00 -
[44]
It's be interesting to see multiple types of T2 destroyers come out really, I mean, we've got 3 types of T2 frigs, 2 types of T2 cruisers, 1 BS type seems fair, but it'd be nice to see more than 1 Destroyer type.
Maybe an armored Dessie with web range and small gun damage bonuses as well, so that it can take out AF/Intys, and then a hunter-dessie, with the ability to mount a special probe launcher type and cloak-piercing probes which allow the dessie to locate and target cloaked ships in range like they were using a passive targeter, so the cloaked ship doesn't know it's been locked until its cloak drops.
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries in the oth |
Cilppiz
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 17:48:00 -
[45]
T2 Destroyers, why not. I sure hope they make em as good anti-interceptor/assault
frig platforms and not cruiser/battlecruiser-killers, meaning that they still would
have some of those downsides that T1 destroyers have (slow ships with small DOT but
busrtdamage that has enough kick to take down those T2 frigs). And ofcourse these T2
Destroyer prizes should be equal to T1->T2 frigate prizes.
So basically in my opinion T2 Destroyers should have:
-some resistance bonuses
-tracking bonuses for small guns
-damage bonuses for small guns
-rof penalty, maybe even bigger than T1 versions have since T2 version would have bigger burstdamage
-maybe longer targetting range, so if IC can target destroyer so can destroyer IC
Well just my thoughts...
|
svetlana
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 18:34:00 -
[46]
hmmm... with the idea that their primary role is to mount tons of small guns/launchers to combat frigs, how about T2 destroyers being the first ships to break the 8-hi slot barrier. 12 hi-slots pls!;)
mount tons more little antifrig weaps- do a 'look at' and imagine what the graphic of them would look like- 24 guns pointing in all crazy directions around the outside of the ship -awsome!
|
Kraven Kor
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 18:45:00 -
[47]
Originally by: The Slayer
One word - AEGIS
Well, that is useful to anyone that knows what that is... and especially useful to Caldari (since AEGIS cruisers are missile totin' bad @$$es.)
I think T2 Destroyers should actually come in 2 flavors (eventually):
Gunships: Fits a small amount of medium guns with tracking bonus -- designed to fire slowly with big guns and NOT MISS. -50% RoF. Note that cap use will make these short-lived but if done right they can do a LOT of damage in that short time.
AWACS: Specially designed ships with effectiveness bonuses and cap use reduction on "assistance" modules -- target links, remote sensor boosters, ECCM, etc. In addition, they should be able to make better use of current probes, or in some other fashion be able to home a fleet in on a "safe spotted" hostile.
|
Kraven Kor
|
Posted - 2005.08.23 19:04:00 -
[48]
Or, going with the "Interdictor" concept... Tough ships with defensive bonus and webber/scrambler bonus.
Special (all races): +50% Webber / Scrambler range.
Amarr Interdictor:
4/2/4
Frig: Armor Resist Bonus (10/5), -5% Small Energy Cap use per level.
Destroyer: +5% Small Turret Tracking and +5% Small Turret Optimal per level.
Caldari Interdictor:
4/5/1
Frig: Shield Resist Bonus (10/5), +5% Kinetic Missile Damage per level.
Destroyer: +5% Missile Flight Time and +5% Missile RoF per level.
Gallente Interdictor:
3/3/3 + Drone Bay
Frig: Armor Resist Bonus (10/5), +5% Small Hybrid Damage per level.
Destroyer: +5% Max Speed and -5% MWD Cap Use per level.
Minmatar Interdictor:
4/3/3
Frig: Shield & Armor EM/Thermal Resist Bonus (5/2.5 and 5/2.5), +5% Small Projectile Tracking per level.
Destroyer: +10% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level.
|
Taketa De
|
Posted - 2005.08.24 00:03:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Taketa De on 24/08/2005 00:06:00
Right now in missions and deadspace I fly a destroyer (untill I have my AF trained) and I have a dislike for the ROF penalty.
This would be even more so if I used them for PvP (np PvP so far) because of the loss factor mentioned below.
With my loadout I can mount 5 Prototype Gauss Rails. (As the grid in the things is rather limited) With the penalty it's equivalent to 4 Rails on any other ship.
This increases my loss when loosing my ship and this increases the cost in Grid to mount weapons. A 50% Rof penalty would be pretty disasterous in this respect. (Different of course if they would fit bigger guns like mentioned above - if this enables burst kills)
While high burst damage is nice, I doubt any T2 frigs would be killed in a single burst which means it is DoT that matters again.
So I'm rather against any increase in that penalty and all for a decrease. Possibly remove a highslot or 2 to balance out the penatly being gone... then again AF's have more highslots then most normal frigs so...
About relative strength I think that if AF's can take out T1 cruisers then a T2 Destroyer should as well. HAC's of course should be a step out of their league just as Cruisers are a nice step up from Destroyers.
Also I really like the idea of the Webbifiers range bonus. Goes very well with the anti-frig theme.
|
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.24 00:10:00 -
[50]
an anti NOS platform - invulnerable to all types of NOS - could be used as support ship for battles - could cloak perhaps and be given a abilitiy to use afterburners while in cloak mode.
Good ideas though
|
Allen Deckard
|
Posted - 2005.08.24 00:36:00 -
[51]
I also like some of the ideas.
I would like:
remove penalties first
Give them the same t2 shield and armor hp bonuses as other t2.
For bonuses
I would like an additional mid slot and one additional low
Would like to see 50% bonus to web range and 20% bonus to strength along with 5% per level
Would also like 50% bonus to warp disrupt range and something like a +.5 to warp disrupt per level.
|
Drew Kelly
|
Posted - 2005.08.24 01:59:00 -
[52]
T2 Destroyers should have a bonus that extends the range of the webifier I think like 10% to webifier range per level so they can even catch sniper intys sometimes, I think T2 destroyers should def get some bonus to res as they are T2, also a increase in velocity and powergrid would be nice, they need more slots as well i think a destroyer should atleast have 2 of each kind of slot. As for anti covert op I think it would horrible for an anti cloaking device(as it ruins covert ships) to be put into Eve unless the insurance for covert ships was increased to the current sell value or the price for the covert ships/device came down to around 10 mil(which will never happen I should think).
 |
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 05:09:00 -
[53]
It looks like ppl want to see two slightly different T2 destroyers and i thinked i make example what ppl are wanting to see.
Of course i dropped some suggestion off and added my own opinions there so dont take this as an all covering thing. i know these two examples are not gonna satisfy all ppl, but remember these are two different ships from two different race. (i didnt have time to make ship examples of all 8 ships we are hoping,sry).
Amarr destroyer (point defence):
Frigate Bonus: 10% bonus to energy turret tracking speed per level, -10% small energy turret capacitor use.
Destroyer Bonus: 15% bonus to Shield and Armor Explosive resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor Kinetic resistance per level.
+5% small energy turret rate of fire per level.
+100% micro smartbomb Range per level. +50% smartbomb damage against missiles per level.
Special Ability: Micro smartbomb disables cloaking device if it does damage to cloaked ship
Penalty: -35% rate of fire for all turrets. 50% reduction micro smartbomb damage.
Can only fit one micro smartbomb.
Stats:
Powergrid output: 95 MW
Cpuoutput: 200
Highslots: 8
Medslots: 2
Lowslots: 4
Launcher slots: 0
Turret Slots: 7
Shield: 600
Shield EM resistance: 0%
Shield Explosive resistance: 85%
Shield Kinetic resistance: 65%
Shield Thermal resistance: 15%
Armor: 1100
Armor EM resistance: 55%
Armor Explosive resistance: 75%
Armor Kinetic resistance: 65%
Armor Thermal resistance: 40%
Targeting range: 45000m
Signature radius: 95m
Max velocity: 180 m/s
Minmatar destroyer (Patrol):
Frigate Bonus: 10% bonus to projectile turret tracking speed per level, 5% small projectile turret damage per level, 7,5% falloff per level.
Destroyer Bonus: 15% bonus to Shield and Armor EM resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor Thermal resistance per level.
5% small projectile turret rate of fire per level.
10% Scramble and webifier range per level.
Penalty: -15% rate of fire for all turrets.
Stats:
Powergrid output: 100 MW
Cpuoutput: 230
Highslots: 7
Medslots: 4
Lowslots: 3
Launcher slots: 0
Turret Slots: 7
Shield: 650
Shield EM resistance: 65%
Shield Explosive resistance: 50%
Shield Kinetic resistance: 50%
Shield Thermal resistance: 60%
Armor: 750
Armor EM resistance: 85%
Armor Explosive resistance: 35%
Armor Kinetic resistance: 35%
Armor Thermal resistance: 50%
Targeting range: 40000m
Signature radius: 65m
Max velocity: 290 m/s
|
Shaelin Corpius
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 07:09:00 -
[54]
Very Uber like the rest of the assault gang.
High res's, more range/damage, more armor/shield, more pwrgrid/cpu. Increased web/scrammie ranges, and big signature.
Maybe even one with special MWD skills.
|
Sumica
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 08:12:00 -
[55]
Thought a micro smartbombs range was shorter the na cloaks deactvation range. As in if your close enought to hit with a micro SB you might as well just lock the guy cause he is already decloaking.
Your not stupid just misinformed Ö |
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 08:15:00 -
[56]
what about the NOS invulernable idea could be useful in gate and fleet battles
|
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 08:47:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Sumica
Thought a micro smartbombs range was shorter the na cloaks deactvation range. As in if your close enought to hit with a micro SB you might as well just lock the guy cause he is already decloaking.
ummmm.... take a closer look this bonus:
+100% micro smartbomb Range per level.
or do i remember wrong that covert op uncloack range.... umm i think i do please someone remind me??
anyway that bonus should be so it can uncloak covert op who is approaching to  range and honestly i dont have any idea what that range should be. u tell me what those prosents should be.
|
Vaygr
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 09:24:00 -
[58]
Fall off bonus to the minmatar T2 destroyer so our ACs can reach farther then 5000 meters heh.
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 11:20:00 -
[59]
I think they will have t2 destroyers perfect if they retain just the same mount of vulnerability to every ship they do at the moment...
...except frigates. When a frigate fleet sees one, they'll think twice about engaging. Where as the same fleet would engage a bs and not think twice.
The bs would pwn the t2 destroyer though. Paper scissors stone 4tw?
------------
We come in peace. And tanks. |
Amon Evakrace
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 14:57:00 -
[60]
Having read through this thread, although the idea for other ships is great, with regards to ew capability etc, were talking about DESTROYERS here.
I disagree that they shouldnt have resistances to match their AF counterparts, as a t2 destroyers job would be to pretty much destroy everybody frigate in the sky, bar none.
Look at the t1 versions over all over t1 frigs, they pwn em, the same should be said for t2 destroyers. No fancy thrills, just good at their intended roll, to scorch out enemy frigs.
This at the very least will see the poor destroyer class returned to fleet combat and on pos/station patrol as its a quick simple and realistic means to remove skirmisher threats.
Leave the grand ew ideas for the t2 BB and whatnot :P
Mean and Mercenary |
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.25 18:11:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Amon Evakrace
Having read through this thread, although the idea for other ships is great, with regards to ew capability etc, were talking about DESTROYERS here.
I disagree that they shouldnt have resistances to match their AF counterparts, as a t2 destroyers job would be to pretty much destroy everybody frigate in the sky, bar none.
Look at the t1 versions over all over t1 frigs, they pwn em, the same should be said for t2 destroyers. No fancy thrills, just good at their intended roll, to scorch out enemy frigs.
This at the very least will see the poor destroyer class returned to fleet combat and on pos/station patrol as its a quick simple and realistic means to remove skirmisher threats.
Leave the grand ew ideas for the t2 BB and whatnot :P
Well imo those i maded up about all post¦s in this thread fit ur description quite well imo but if u see there un balance tell me what should be changed why and what it would affect???
|
Plekto
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 04:07:00 -
[62]
How about enough cpu and power to fit 8 small guns without being gimped in the attempt(kind of like how Battlecruisers were an upgrade to Cruisers)
|
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 08:10:00 -
[63]
Destroyers don't need to be able to tank frigates, just, er, destroy them.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 10:42:00 -
[64]
I wholeheartedly support each race getting two different tech2 destroyers. One frig-swatter, one wtfux bomber. And no TomB-esque stealth bomber crazytalk. Seriously. I'm talking proper bombers here. Cripes, why not add a seperate weapon class... BOMBS! Is it too much to ask? I dunno, chuck them under the Launcher group, give them really short range, missile-like flight characteristics and insanebabble damage.
No, screw that. I've got it.
Suicide modules. Right on the money. I want them in-game. There was a smartbomb tucked away in the database, never released, that did 1k kinetic damage but ruined the ship. Sure, there's the issue of the whole Yulai Bombing Sprees, but that's why they implemented the Contraband system, yah?
How about this... add a smartbomb that is essentially a self-blow thing. Then make it have *fuel*. Hear me out. Explosive-stacked industrial hurtling towards a crippled conquerable station, or maybe warping it into the middle of a huge group of enemies via stealthed ships...
Instant love. Right there.
---
Is this a constructive thread? |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 10:45:00 -
[65]
Oooh, got it. Three variants. One that requires close to 1km3 of explosive fuel. Another that requires 2.5k, last that needs 6k. Explosive radius of 7/13/19 kilometers, with appropriate damage. The explosive itself would be contraband. Blueprint would not be sold, only given out in copies by Pirate agents.
BRILLIANT!
Oh good lordsticks on a ratkebab, I'm bored...
---
Is this a constructive thread? |
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 10:48:00 -
[66]
that contraband explosive thing has a use in 0.0 and low sec gate camps
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 11:21:00 -
[67]
Damn straight. Altho less with gate camps, and more with breaking gate camps. It would most likely require the sacrifice of the pilot himself, though. Imagine, re-usable suicide bombers. Lord is it hard NOT to make real-life comments right now.
Maybe add a timer to it, much like the smartbomb activation time only longer? Like, say, takes 30 seconds to activate with good skills. Although in that case, I believe you should be able to activate it in mid-warp, or even before warp. Misjudge the time it'll take you to warp though, and you'll either end up as a greaspy splatter some AU's away from anything, or you'll get blown by the opposition because it takes too long for you to detonate.
The perfect scenario, however, would be that damage and radius would be affected by the amount of charges in the cargo hold. But besides having a ginormous charge capacity on the detonator module, I can't see it happening without a new feature being added to weapon systems.
---
Is this a constructive thread? |
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 04:31:00 -
[68]
hmmm Raem Civrie: i miss the point of general usefulness of suicide bombers, i mean i think that there is not enough ppl who would use that kind of ship but mayby "sacrife" some new module to that purpose.
IMO T2 destroyers are not good choice of making that kinda specialisation (ok ok i admit their name fits in that bomber thing quite well but still...)
well i sure hope ppl have more ideas???
|
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 06:26:00 -
[69]
Why tech2 destroyers will most likely fail:
- Interceptors and assaults cover all spectrum. First are extremely fast, second well tanked. Obviously dest cant be fast, so they will be more like asssaults, but if they have af tanking, af themselfs become useless. If dest tech2 wont be tanked as well as af, then the only way to make them antifrig is give them big dps
- However, ceptors and af already provide extremely good dps. Even if dest II will drop rof penalty and fit full rack of guns wihout damage bonus they will have hard time to outdamage tech2 frigs. And with inhereted bonuses form tech1 dest only mins dest will get bonus to damage
- Also since dest cant be fast they need range to ougun enemy frigs, especially fast ones. But af already have bonus to range, and only caldari dest has tech1 bonus to range. Meaning that most likely dest II wont outrange frigs II
- Pricewise dest should be around 20-30 mil at least which place them in bc or 2-3 cruiser value range. A bc fitted as dest can have 6-7 guns, up to 6 lows and 5 meds, plus drones not to mention huge HP. Cruiser fitted as dest also has huge hp and up to 4 meds or 5 lows. Which makes dest II to be in a great competition.
- But dest II can't be boosted over the cruiser or bc level because they cant be better then HAC, and in fact the gap between BC and HAC is not that huge to have a dest II to dominate it.
- As a tech2 ships new dest will require quite some skills and isk wihout insurance, which means that you can't put new pilots in it to support fleet, but you have to make them really valuable to put exp pilots in them. It is very questionable that dest II will be any more valuable then ceptor, bc or ew cruiser, not to metion bs which with heavy noses can totaly pwd anything small
One can argua a lot about how much these points will actually affect dest II, but obviouly we can all see that the niche for dest II is so narrow that it is very hard to make them to be worth flying.
I would suggest to look at following complex solution:
- All tech2 frigs should be rebalanced, especially ceptors and af, which will allow to fit dests II by moving some features around all the tech2 small ships
- First of all, ceptors do not fill the role. They have inappropriate bonuses to damage, which allow them to be more then assaults. We all know that crusader makes retribution to be just a slow punisher.
- So ceptors should lose all bonuses to damage and possibly 1 high slot, but gain bonuses to taclking with +1 med to all. Such as 1 ceptor in a race should get bonus to webs strength and range, and the other to scramblers and their range. Which will make ceptors to be low damage, but best tacklers. Probably 1 ceptor in a race should be faster with 3 meds, and 1 slower with 4 meds.
- Then only ceptors are moved to be taclkers assaults become damage dealers. I would also suggest to move 1 med to 1 low for all of them, having retrebution with 0 med and 6 lows at the worst. These ships shoud not be taclkers, 3 meds per race is too much, they should not steal ceptors work, but do more damage. I would hovewer increase the base speed of these ships for about 30% and add more mass to them, restricting them from ab and mwd so they will be very different from ceptors
So with such rebalance we now have ceptors which are fast, a lof of meds, bonuses to taclking, but no tank, no damage. And afs which have minimum meds but have damage and best tank. Now can put dest to be in the middle, and dominate them both, but be weak agaisnt bigger ships, such as:
|
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 06:34:00 -
[70]
- Have bonus to range. Which is very important for point defence ship. Frigs tend to turn on a dime and warp out. Dest should be able to engage any frig at ranges of 20-30 km with about 15km be most damage, so frig wont be able to retreat
- Have superior firepower. Dest II should outdamage af clearly. Af is a tank, dest is not. If 1 dest is about 1 af its not a point defence. Dest should have damage to scare at least 2 af or 3-5 new ceptors. So rof penalty has to go.
- Have race resists and HP of about af, but much bigger sig. Which allow them to hold against frigs and race enemy frig weapon, but take all possible damage fomr bigger ships. Since MK2 cruiser are suppose to have around 100m sig, then dest with sig 80 is practiacly a cruiser. Af clearly wins the taking with 3 times less sig
- Dest II slots should allow them to be between ceptors and af, with 7 med/lows
|
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 19:03:00 -
[71]
Good points Nomen.
hey guys lets give CCP just little more ideas.. ok?
(it would be nice IF some dev have readed this PLZ give us: . dont comment just show us that u are aware?)
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 19:13:00 -
[72]
While making the destroyer an anti-frig platform makes a certain ammount of sense, sure.
Seems like making it an anti-drone platform would allow the development and fleshing of this line of weaponry without creating quite as many ripples. Without ships designed as a specific counter to drones, it will always be hard to justify making drones as much of a specialty as they could be.
So anti-carrier/anti-drones would get my vote for the proper niche. Cruisers can handle frigates.
|
Khristopher
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 13:48:00 -
[73]
Lots of awesome ideas. Honestly I'd like to see the negative to ROF dropped, speed increase, bit more armor/shield and resists so it can tangle with Assault Frigs.
Someone also said "They should be the bane of frig blobs" and I completely agree. Having only recently tried out the destroyers I'd love to see a t2 version.
|
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 02:29:00 -
[74]
/me wants more ideas.
anyone know are these t2 destroyers Kali feature or should we except them sooner?
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 02:44:00 -
[75]
Simply making tech 2 destroyers another "HAC" type would make assault frigates more or less completly redundant, they should be very good at anti frig but through simple tanking and ganking.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 06:57:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:00:56
Originally by: Corey Grim
/me wants more ideas.
T2
T1
|
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 07:21:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Vishnej
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:00:56
Originally by: Corey Grim
/me wants more ideas.
T2
T1
Yeah that's balanced. Caldari Destroyer with 7mids. Umm noo..
Destroyers don't need any more gun enhancements or energy nos/blah enhancements. They can carry a good set of each with the elite high slots all destroyers have. Destroyers them selves should have a EW bonus if anything.
Here are the main aspects that make them hard to use
-Slow
-Can't tank
My suggestions
-Boost Amarr Mids up in next one.
-Webbing range Bonus to Minmatar
-Tracking Disruptor Bonus to Amarr
-ECM cap reduction to Caldari
-Warp Scramble range bonus with Galente
Just an idea though. I dono...
-Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 07:32:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:35:46
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:33:55
They would all make quite capable EW ships for the one or two cycles they'd last, cap-wise.
The BB has 6 slots, and will be a hell of a lot cheaper, if the price premiums on T2 ships remain roughly the same. The blackbird also has a rangebonus on ECM. Would you call the blackbird unbalanced?
The medslots were intended for tracking computers, sensor boosters, and tackling gear for the most part, all of which in my mind belong on a destroyer. The Caldari one gets extra because it's supposed to shield tank.
|
Nar Kotor
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 08:46:00 -
[79]
Role should be an enhanced version of their current use, large ship flak screen. They are there to screen out frigates, so should be able to deal enough damage fast enough to break any frigate tank (assuming all of its firepower is concentrated on one target)
Increased armour/hull/shield,
Resistances just above what HACs get,
Better RoF skill related bonus (so that it raises it above 0%)
Tracking bonus increased
Increased racial bonus (Damage, Cap, Range, Falloff)
webber/scrambler range or power bonus OR Nos/Nuet rang or power bonus
_____/------\_____
Rap is to music what paint by numbers is to art
Conserve toilet paper, use both sides
Nuke the unborn baby whales
Your AD here |
Azuriel Talloth
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 09:08:00 -
[80]
Webber range bonus imo.
"Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory,
for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated." |
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 10:04:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Vishnej
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:35:46
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/09/2005 07:33:55
They would all make quite capable EW ships for the one or two cycles they'd last, cap-wise.
The BB has 6 slots, and will be a hell of a lot cheaper, if the price premiums on T2 ships remain roughly the same. The blackbird also has a rangebonus on ECM. Would you call the blackbird unbalanced?
The medslots were intended for tracking computers, sensor boosters, and tackling gear for the most part, all of which in my mind belong on a destroyer. The Caldari one gets extra because it's supposed to shield tank.
If you ment ECM. Named ECM and correct skills don't eat as much cap as you think. If they're in range of NoS definatly not. Check out there base cap for example. Caldari destroyer has 400 I believe. 400 - 51.2 for level IV EW. That's more than 2-3. Plus regain time while jammed.
-Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
|
s73v3n2k
|
Posted - 2005.09.05 11:11:00 -
[82]
Edited by: s73v3n2k on 05/09/2005 11:18:54
Here is a list of the T2 detroyers. I would take the stats with a pinch of salt because CCP are good a changing things at the last minute.
By the looks of the skills required they are going to be called INTERDICTORS maybe and the interdictor skill requires covert ops.
might give some indication as to what they might be used for
also i found this about interdictor class cruisers used in the starwars movies
Interdictor-class ships are equipped with four gravity-well generators that simulate large planet-sized masses, the purpose of which is to draw craft out of hyperspace or prevent ships from engaging hyperdrive and fleeing a battle. This secret technology is particularly useful for trapping and catching pirates and smugglers, and for holding a smaller enemy fleet in space so it cannot avoid destruction at the hands of an Imperial fleet. The gravity well generators are housed in four bubble-shaped protrusions, a pair located on the upper hull of the Interdictor and the second pair located on the bottom hull. Creating Interdictors is financially tedious, so Interdictors will not be found accompanying every Imperial fleet. Typically an Interdictor will be employed patrolling known smuggling routes to catch smugglers and maintain peace and order in a sector. With twenty turbolaser cannons and two squadrons of TIE Fighters, the Interdictor, which is slightly smaller than an Imperial Star Destroyer, is capable of defending itself from enemy fighters and small cruisers.
So i am thinking they are going to be possible high tech tacklers that prevent people from warping. This makes sense because warp scramblers are about to be changed so they have racial variations like jamming does which is based on your propulsion size.
|
HUGO DRAX
|
Posted - 2005.09.11 11:57:00 -
[83]
Thorax does the job of a "T2 Destroyer" whatever that is. 5 T2 blasters and tank ability
|
Corey Grim
|
Posted - 2005.09.13 19:53:00 -
[84]
Originally by: HUGO DRAX
Thorax does the job of a "T2 Destroyer" whatever that is. 5 T2 blasters and tank ability
well maybe if u think it defence wise, but try to attack assault frig/ceptor whit thorax 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |