| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
S2N Citizens
2
   |
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
All Lvl V skills and MWD
Omen 2010 m/s ---> Coercer 1709 m/s Dragoon 1578 m/s
Caracal 2287 m/s ---> Corax 1395 m/s Cormorant 1644 m/s
Thorax 2028 m/s ---> Algos 1673 m/s Catalyst 1846 m/s
Stabber 2435 m/s ---> Talwar 1709 m/s Thrasher 1844 m/s
Attack Cruisers are faster, stronger, and in the case of a RLML Caracal do MUCH more damage to frigates. I see no reason to ever fly a Destroyer.
Let the trolling begin.
|
Veraca Darmazaf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote:
Let the trolling begin.
I think the trolling began at the start of your post. |
Allbrecht
Crossfire Incorporated
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Price tag and signature radius? |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1881
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote: I see no reason to ever fly a Destroyer.
Before anyone else jumps on OP, I think they should read this.
Making fun of people with a disability isn't cool guys.  |
Hubbeli Puppeli
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote:In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
All Lvl V skills and MWD
Omen 2010 m/s ---> Coercer 1709 m/s Dragoon 1578 m/s
Caracal 2287 m/s ---> Corax 1395 m/s Cormorant 1644 m/s
Thorax 2028 m/s ---> Algos 1673 m/s Catalyst 1846 m/s
Stabber 2435 m/s ---> Talwar 1709 m/s Thrasher 1844 m/s
Attack Cruisers are faster, stronger, and in the case of a RLML Caracal do MUCH more damage to frigates. I see no reason to ever fly a Destroyer.
Let the trolling begin.
[/troll] I still rather use 8 highslot Cormorant as salvage ship than any cruiser :) [/end troll] |
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
37
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 20:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
There are a lot of uses for the destroyers we have and some of them are very popular for the job too. Thus, your argument is pretty much invalid. Being able to fly a bigger ship does not equate flying a better ship. It really depends on the application.
To give some examples...
The 700DPS gank catalyst
The 90km PvE Corax
The salvaging Cormorant
The FW Alpha Thrasher
The Welp Fleet Talwar
The (upcoming) NOS Dragoon.
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 21:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'll agree with you in respect to the RLM Caracal, but aside from that the heightened tracking available to destroyers make them more effective against frigates. +50% tracking and the tracking and the signature resolution make the destroyers superior for turret work against frigates. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1368
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 21:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
And some people still believe the Earth is flat, or the center of the Universe. That's OK. Go with it.
Nobody's laughing at you. Really. 
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Battle BV Master
Executor BV
Sovereign Infinity
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 21:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Excluding salvaing (8 highs) a cruiser can do everything better. But simply not cheaper.
I aint no dessie fan either mind you, I consider them to be almost as useless as you.
Not enough speed and scan res for good tackle, not enough tank to brawl.
---
They simply dont sit as nicely between frigs and cruiser as battlecruisers sit between cruisers and battleships.
---
At last, the same point I make everytime I talk about destroyers. Remove the tracking bonus and greatly up the HP. A BC has a very real chance at a BS. A dessie has no hope against a cruiser (assuming all are flown with decent skill, fit and brain power) |
David Kir
Tailender
37
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 22:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Battle BV Master wrote:Excluding salvaing (8 highs) a cruiser can do everything better. But simply not cheaper.
I aint no dessie fan either mind you, I consider them to be almost as useless as you.
Not enough speed and scan res for good tackle, not enough tank to brawl.
---
They simply dont sit as nicely between frigs and cruiser as battlecruisers sit between cruisers and battleships.
---
At last, the same point I make everytime I talk about destroyers. Remove the tracking bonus and greatly up the HP. A BC has a very real chance at a BS. A dessie has no hope against a cruiser (assuming all are flown with decent skill, fit and brain power)
That is because unlike Battlecruisers, Destroyers are not an intermediate class.
A Battlecruiser is a generic ship, the quintessence of generalization.
A compromise between mobility, damage projection and endurance.
Destroyers, instead, are specialized ships, intended to hunt frigates.
That's why their bonuses are aimed towards tracking and damage application, and they are as (if not less) durable than frigates.
The issue isn't the current balance, as most of the destroyers perform well within their role, but CCP's concept of a "destroyer".
Transforming them into up-scale combat capable vessels would require a conceptual change, not a balancing pass. |
|
|
Battle BV Master
Executor BV
Sovereign Infinity
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 22:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Oh fully agreed, its the way the ships are designed right now. My point is mainly that for an entire class their role is currently too small.
The fix is indeed a concept change, just saying I'm in favor of having that change. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 22:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sorry, but TC is blatantly incorrect. Destroyers do being cheap and dying quickly much better than cruisers do. Also, destroyers provide better reasons for people to ask, "WTF? How did he get in our fleet with that ship?" |
David Kir
Tailender
37
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 22:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote:In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
All Lvl V skills and MWD
Omen 2010 m/s ---> Coercer 1709 m/s Dragoon 1578 m/s
Caracal 2287 m/s ---> Corax 1395 m/s Cormorant 1644 m/s
Thorax 2028 m/s ---> Algos 1673 m/s Catalyst 1846 m/s
Stabber 2435 m/s ---> Talwar 1709 m/s Thrasher 1844 m/s
Attack Cruisers are faster, stronger, and in the case of a RLML Caracal do MUCH more damage to frigates. I see no reason to ever fly a Destroyer.
Let the trolling begin.
You'll find out that naval terminology and EVE concepts have very little to do with each other.
Just think of the real battlecruisers and the ones we have in this game: only the ex-Tier 3 ones would classify as such, if we were to judge them by naval standards.
That said, Destroyers ARE very good at hunting smaller targets.
The Destroyer class is meant to be very effective against frigates, and it is, much more so than most cruisers.
Yes, the RLM Caracal overshadows the Corax, yet a well fit Caracal costs more and requires more skills, besides not being able to access small sized FW complexes.
|
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
S2N Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
All I'm saying is that Destroyers should have two things. A ton of frigate sized guns, and the speed to easily engage a fast target. |
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
S2N Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
I fixed it to be more eve lore friendly...
In EVE lore terminology, a destroyer is a slow vessel capable of easily being outmaneuvered by ships many times it's size. It's intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet by falling far behind them and defending the empty space to the rear the of the battle group against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
|
Tsukino Stareine
The Red Circle Inc.
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Every original destroyer has 7-8 turret slots all the new ones have at least 6.
|
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
160
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 23:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Destroyers can get into 100% more FW small complexes than cruisers can.
-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper |
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
S2N Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Every original destroyer has 7-8 turret slots all the new ones have at least 6.
Yeah, the firepower is fine. They need the speed to make the ship class more enticing and less of a, "They're good at salvaging?" and, "They're 15M cheaper than cruisers?" |
Tsukino Stareine
The Red Circle Inc.
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
they do their job fine, they are frigate deterrants. You don't need to blow something up if it's sole goal is to run away from you. Cruisers cannot catch frigates either so the speed comparisons are moot. |
Hakaimono
Stillwater Corporation
That Escalated Quickly
162
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Frig sized prop mod on a larger ship will be slower than a cruiser sized prop mod on a cruiser, especially Attack Cruisers that are designed to be faster than others in its class. |
|
|
Ilasia Lynn
Lynn Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 11:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
They are cheap, high damage low tank ships. They're meant to fight frigates and gang up on larger ships. That's a big enough role to justify a ship class imo. |
Liam Inkuras
Justified Chaos
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 14:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hakaimono wrote:Frig sized prop mod on a larger ship will be slower than a cruiser sized prop mod on a cruiser, especially Attack Cruisers that are designed to be faster than others in its class.
10mn Coercer anyone?
I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
1057
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 14:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
They are better at killing frigates in general.. (Not a universal truth of course but in general)
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Elvis Fett
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Samurai Pizza Cats
196
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 15:08:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bring your cruiser into a small FW plex, pretty sure destroyers do that better. Just sayin'. |
God's Apples
The Tuskers
89
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 15:40:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:And some people still believe the Earth is flat, or the center of the Universe. That's OK. Go with it. Nobody's laughing at you. Really.
We are technically at the center of the universe since the universe doesn't have a center and you could claim everywhere is the center...
It's pretty bad to say that dessies are worse than cruisers because that's like saying the stabber is worse than the cynabal and wondering why anyone would fly a stabber (although I still wonder why anyone would fly a stabbert). They can do the same job almost as well for a much lower price point. |
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
S2N Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kinda falling off topic here I guess, especially since I started off with an overly bold claim. I was really just trying to point out how slow they are... They should be able to kite a cruiser, yet be slower than frigates. That's just one man's opinion though. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
481
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
I like stabbers! 
That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
913
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 11:56:00 -
[28] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote:In naval terminology
1st mistake, this is Eve and naval terminology doesn't apply in any form, end of the line.
If we should take the naval terminology then what would be T3's compared with battleships (just for Baltec this one hehe)
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Derren Zelway
The Black Ops
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Derren Zelway wrote:In naval terminology 1st mistake, this is Eve and naval terminology doesn't apply in any form, end of the line. If we should take the naval terminology then what would be T3's compared with battleships (just for Baltec this one hehe)
I fixed it to be more eve lore friendly...
In EVE lore terminology, a destroyer is a slow vessel capable of easily being outmaneuvered by ships many times it's size. It's intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet by falling far behind them and defending the empty space to the rear the of the battle group against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers. |
Kimo Khan
Novum Matutinus
115
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 15:00:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:And some people still believe the Earth is flat, or the center of the Universe. That's OK. Go with it. Nobody's laughing at you. Really.
Actually the Earth is flat AND is the center of the Universe. Anyone who believes it is and OR statement is guilty of an Amarr heresy. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |