EVE Search - 2nd tier Destroyers?? A needed ship for an availble roll...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

2nd tier Destroyers?? A needed ship for an availble roll...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 15:49:00 - [1] There's a definite roll for the need of additional destroyers. The current aviable options are severly limited to point as to make the ships a liability during engagements. There needs to be an alternate destroyer type availble at Destory lvl 3 or lvl 4. Being that the intended roll for a destroyer in actual naval warfare is more along the lines of a patrol vessle we should see a new ship with speed bonues. For starters a "+5% speed, +10% tracking per destroyer level" would be well recieved. A supplemental modifier based upon the racial jurisdictions could be to the effect of "+3% per -racial- Frigate Level". Any thoughts about this? Boobies:
Haniblecter Teg	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:02:00 - [2] Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 14/04/2006 16:04:41 Its fine how it is. Right now, a pilot with good skills nad the proper fit, can take out most interceptors. Catalyst would be my primary choice: 6x 150mm 2x 125mm 1x Sensor Booster 1x Web 2x Mag Stab 1x CoProc 1x hull upgrade You can either take out the other booster for a web, or have to two boosters (not recomended) The catalyst with good skills can hit a frig orbiting at 1km-5km at 500m/s. It takes about 12 seconds to kill a crow. WIth AM it can hit effectively opt + falloff to about 20km. You need 5/5/5/4 fitting skills to manage that. Has 1.92 PG left. They're fine, people just dont use them cause they're silly. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Kilo Paskaa	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:05:00 - [3] Rocketspammer caldari ship for meh! --------
Har Ganeth	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:09:00 - [4] Assault Destroyers would be interesting.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:09:00 - [5] caldari missile destroyer will happen if we get tier2s, and i can imagine it being quite uber... Win a Cerberus!! sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:\|. - Teblin Who pwned who? ~kieron
lofty29	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:35:00 - [6] Originally by: HippoKing caldari missile destroyer will happen if we get tier2s, and i can imagine it being quite uber... Flycatcher --------------------------- Originally by: Oveur I see boobies! \o/
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:40:00 - [7] I currently use an Amarr Coercer. My fitting arraingments are: 5x Medium Pulse Laser II 3x nos 1x AB II and a few other goodies.... I'll occasionaly drop in 2x Gattling Pulse Laser II's to allow for a 400m rolled plate module. I can catch someone off gaurd with this set up and it's more geared towards close range support and/or escort. In a poorly designed process I can understand how a more advanced one could lead to the predecessor becoming obsolete although a sound development process will ensure both are functioning well within their intended rolls. Afterall, most advances are intended to serve as a method to improve upon thus retiring the previous design. What's needed is an effective means to entive players to advance through a set ship roll while providing an option of tactics and preventing a new model from breaking mechanics. The TechII destys are in a class of their own with a HUGE gap inbetween them and the tier 1 destys. As there are 2 different types of assault frigates there should also be at least 1, or 2, types of tier 2 destroyers. In the least they should have increased speed for "patrol" purposed with possibly an additional bonus to warp speeds. They should be fast responce ships. Armor would not need improving since speed should suffice. Additional maneuverability would likely be a trait of a tier 2 desty. Other then that, they should remain close to their previous designs although the cost should establish the niche these "patrol" ships would serve. Currently a Destroyer sells from about 850k-1.4m whereas it's reasonable for a price upwards of 12m-16m for something as proposed in my post. Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Right now, a pilot with good skills nad the proper fit, can take out most interceptors. Catalyst would be my primary choice: 6x 150mm 2x 125mm 1x Sensor Booster 1x Web 2x Mag Stab 1x CoProc 1x hull upgrade You can either take out the other booster for a web, or have to two boosters (not recomended) The catalyst with good skills can hit a frig orbiting at 1km-5km at 500m/s. It takes about 12 seconds to kill a crow. WIth AM it can hit effectively opt + falloff to about 20km. You need 5/5/5/4 fitting skills to manage that. Has 1.92 PG left. They're fine, people just dont use them cause they're silly. Also, your prposed mdos would make the tier 1 Destro obsolete. Boobies:
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:41:00 - [8] Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: HippoKing caldari missile destroyer will happen if we get tier2s, and i can imagine it being quite uber... Flycatcher Loffty, would you be kind enough to elaborate on your minimalistic post? :P I would love to hear actual ideas then see blurts with little meaning. :) Boobies:
Stitcher	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:46:00 - [9] Edited by: Stitcher on 14/04/2006 16:53:55 I think he's referring to the tech 2 Caldari destroyer, the "Flycatcher", which sports six missile hardpoints, and a missile damage and precision bonus, thereby making it an effective missile destroyer.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:51:00 - [10] Originally by: Har Ganeth Assault Destroyers would be interesting. Yes, because making Assualt Frigates obselete is "interesting", right. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.04.14 16:55:00 - [11] Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: HippoKing caldari missile destroyer will happen if we get tier2s, and i can imagine it being quite uber... Flycatcher my idea is of a t1 one. that means bonuses bonuses to precision and flight time, across 7/8 launcher slots (no damage bonus) and the ability to one volley most frigates. t1 means disposable though... Win a Cerberus!! sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:\|. - Teblin Who pwned who? ~kieron
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 17:23:00 - [12] Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: HippoKing caldari missile destroyer will happen if we get tier2s, and i can imagine it being quite uber... Flycatcher my idea is of a t1 one. that means bonuses bonuses to precision and flight time, across 7/8 launcher slots (no damage bonus) and the ability to one volley most frigates. t1 means disposable though... Yes, the current Tech I options are limited. As for the Assault Frigate, keep in mind the destroyer is also known as an "Anti-Frigate". Most AF's bypass standard tI destroyers. Allowing for a gap to be filled will encourage more use, not less. A fleet should have to focus on eliminating Destroyers so their Frigates can get in closer. It's hardly a concern as of now. Boobies:
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.04.14 17:33:00 - [13] dont you guys think destroyers are a bit ** atm? imo destroyers and BC are crap for pvp destroyers have far too high a sig and die easilly to medium weapons. BC have too high a sig and die easilly to BS i know they are good if your fighting frigs/cepters only but past that they suck bg time. infact if im every in a crusier or bomber or AF i take out destroyers first usually since they so easy to hit and they melt away and it dosent help that the overview square for them makes them look like crusiers so in a frig group they stick out to be shot at first -------------------Sig----------------------- Decrease blaster CPU useage** Decrease Hybrid cap useage Balance all weapon systems DO IT SOON
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 19:18:00 - [14] Originally by: Gronsak dont you guys think destroyers are a bit **** atm? imo destroyers and BC are crap for pvp destroyers have far too high a sig and die easilly to medium weapons. BC have too high a sig and die easilly to BS i know they are good if your fighting frigs/cepters only but past that they suck bg time. infact if im every in a crusier or bomber or AF i take out destroyers first usually since they so easy to hit and they melt away and it dosent help that the overview square for them makes them look like crusiers so in a frig group they stick out to be shot at first It's relative. Yes there are huge gaps in ship rolls which create a need for a tier 2 Desty and I'm sure others would also like to see a tier 2 BC. The primary purpose of a Destroyer in fleet engagements "is as a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them agasint smaller, short range attackers." Is this roll accurately filled with the current availble destroyers in EVE? I think they are within some limits while there's a huge hole that needs to be filled. Destroyers _should_ be a target during engagements. They should be removed to allow your frigates to get in close. The problem is the scarcity of destroyers in combat. Adding tier 2 destroyers would be VERY welcomed, almost as much as a tier 2 Battlecruiser. And to add some info for a counter view to the concern that's been expressed before about a Destroyer replacing a Battleship: The United States Navy sees the DD(X) destroyer project as the replacement for Iowa and Wisconsin, the last two remaining battleships in the US fleet. This move has placed the destroyer in harm's way with both the Army and the Marine Corps. The Marines in particular feel very strongly against replacing the battleships with the DD(X) destroyer... Heh, I'm not a fan of the concept relating to Destroyers. I swear!! Boobies:
Tsual	Posted - 2006.04.14 20:21:00 - [15] Just three easy suggestion to make destroyers more intersting/able to survive better: warp speed of destroyes to 4.5 au/s (on par with industrials - escort ship) sig decrease by 15% overall hp increase by 15% additional wishes: additional med slot for catalyst,coercer additional low slot for thrasher, comorant higher pg for catalyst and coercer. ******************** Tsual - Highly ore adddicted.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.14 20:29:00 - [16] The entire destroyer concept basically takes chunks out of the AF's role. THat is all it does, and I really don't get why CCP introduced them. They also need the last absokutely uncessary boost to weapon and locking range reverted. Tsual, yes, I bet you want a win button against T2 frigs with cost twenty tomes as much and need twenty times the skill points to fly. And incidentally, a faster warp speed would make them LESS useful for escorting. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Livia Tarquina	Posted - 2006.04.14 20:41:00 - [17] How about a speed boost bonus to either the extra velocity or a decrease in capacitor usage? "Big guns and heavy armor what else is there?" --Amarrian Admiral before entering battle against Jove Navy
Sunar SunRunner	Posted - 2006.04.14 20:56:00 - [18] If you want a Frig poper, just fly a Caracal with 5 assault launchers. The standard missiles are fast enough to catch any inty and dont care about how close they are too you and suffer no dmg penalty due to signature. After that your have PG and CPU pouring out of this ship and can fit an absurd sheild tank on it, even T2 gunned AFs cant beat you down faster then you can kill them when you have 5k + sheilds and a minimum of 60% resist across the board and nothing to do with your cap other then warp scramble them and run your sheild booster. Not to mention if you fire your 1st salvo as 4 missile with 1 of each dmg type and watch your log to see what type hes weakest agains you can load up on that and bring the pain. Its not perfect but you can smoke most intys in 2 or 3 salvos, AFs take longer but as long as you can keep them scrambled they will die, the Caracals missile burn bonus means that even the AFs & Intys that like to hang out at 20k range will get tagged with your missiels. and as a Bonus with all basic T1 modules its cheap as hell, nothing like poping a 10+ mil AF or Inty in a 3mil cruiser. I find they work great as anti tackler duty in fleet engagements as your generally a low priority target when BSes are floating around you.
Ominus Decre	Posted - 2006.04.14 22:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Sunar SunRunner If you want a Frig poper, just fly a Caracal with 5 assault launchers. The standard missiles are fast enough to catch any inty and dont care about how close they are too you and suffer no dmg penalty due to signature. After that your have PG and CPU pouring out of this ship and can fit an absurd sheild tank on it, even T2 gunned AFs cant beat you down faster then you can kill them when you have 5k + sheilds and a minimum of 60% resist across the board and nothing to do with your cap other then warp scramble them and run your sheild booster. Not to mention if you fire your 1st salvo as 4 missile with 1 of each dmg type and watch your log to see what type hes weakest agains you can load up on that and bring the pain. Its not perfect but you can smoke most intys in 2 or 3 salvos, AFs take longer but as long as you can keep them scrambled they will die, the Caracals missile burn bonus means that even the AFs & Intys that like to hang out at 20k range will get tagged with your missiels. and as a Bonus with all basic T1 modules its cheap as hell, nothing like poping a 10+ mil AF or Inty in a 3mil cruiser. I find they work great as anti tackler duty in fleet engagements as your generally a low priority target when BSes are floating around you. I would love to see a serious effort made by the developers to broaden the mechanics which allow for a more diverse playing field other then the common fotm's that's being seen. It's been looking good and I will bet it _will_ get even better. First, players seem to continuously forget that the Destroyer is an Anti-Frigate! As with the upgrade from Frigates to Assault-Frigates there also needs to be an equal advancement for Destroyers. The destroyer is an escort platform for larger vessles which is to eat smaller ships like pop-corn. Second, missles are rediculously one sidded and need a MAJOR overhaul! The gaurenteed hit from a missle is of a poor design. don't flame me on this There needs to be anti-missle ships with the sole purpose to swat missles out of space even while they are approaching an ally. Yes, upgrade the use of Defenders and allow a special Anti-Missle boat to shoot missles that are attacking their gang members ships. The function could assist in the same way that an armor-repair or energy-transfer works. I would propose the following for missles: anti-missle boats that can defend the gang agasint alternate missles, a chance for the missle to actually miss the target and an increased dmg output with a larger blast radius and faster blast speed. Boobies:
Audri Fisher	Posted - 2006.04.14 22:42:00 - [20] Originally by: Ominus Decre Originally by: Gronsak dont you guys think destroyers are a bit **** atm? imo destroyers and BC are crap for pvp destroyers have far too high a sig and die easilly to medium weapons. BC have too high a sig and die easilly to BS i know they are good if your fighting frigs/cepters only but past that they suck bg time. infact if im every in a crusier or bomber or AF i take out destroyers first usually since they so easy to hit and they melt away and it dosent help that the overview square for them makes them look like crusiers so in a frig group they stick out to be shot at first It's relative. Yes there are huge gaps in ship rolls which create a need for a tier 2 Desty and I'm sure others would also like to see a tier 2 BC. The primary purpose of a Destroyer in fleet engagements "is as a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them agasint smaller, short range attackers." Is this roll accurately filled with the current availble destroyers in EVE? I think they are within some limits while there's a huge hole that needs to be filled. Destroyers _should_ be a target during engagements. They should be removed to allow your frigates to get in close. The problem is the scarcity of destroyers in combat. Adding tier 2 destroyers would be VERY welcomed, almost as much as a tier 2 Battlecruiser. And to add some info for a counter view to the concern that's been expressed before about a Destroyer replacing a Battleship: The United States Navy sees the DD(X) destroyer project as the replacement for Iowa and Wisconsin, the last two remaining battleships in the US fleet. This move has placed the destroyer in harm's way with both the Army and the Marine Corps. The Marines in particular feel very strongly against replacing the battleships with the DD(X) destroyer... That is because 16 inch Naval guns lobbing shells the size of small cars at anything withen 18 miles of the beach head gives Marines a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Heh, I'm not a fan of the concept relating to Destroyers. I swear!! Maya, we have been over this, Destroyers do not intrude on AF role.You can tretch the hulls to overlap roles a lot, but Af and detroyers definatly has distinct roles. What I am dissapointed in is the Caldari proggression of rail ---> missle boat. One or the other please.
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.04.14 23:06:00 - [21] i never understood why some people are Anti-Destroyer, they are a great concept that needs to be expanded on. if it steps on the AF some who gives a hoot, those who like AFs will still fly them for the speed and small signature.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.14 23:21:00 - [22] Speed? AF's are slow. And their "toughness" is purely relative when a BS starts popping off shots at you from range...sure you can resist a few damage types, but the others will kill you pretty quickly too. That destroyers slash into the AF role is not even really debateable.. AF's are designed for wolfpack heavies and fleet defence. Destroyers cut into fleet defence. Bombers cut into wolfpack heavy. The AF is the rightful defence platform...Destroyers should have other roles, like ASW...anti-cloaker, that is. Ominus Decre, the engine won't support a true missile/PD model. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Tsual	Posted - 2006.04.17 01:44:00 - [23] Quote: They also need the last absokutely uncessary boost to weapon and locking range reverted. Oh and just the basic math: 50% optimal mod + sharp shooter lvl 4 = base optimal of medium turret. Originally by: Maya Rkell Tsual, yes, I bet you want a win button against T2 frigs with cost twenty tomes as much and need twenty times the skill points to fly. Oh the t2 frigat pilot hypocrsis, suddenly they would have to face a cutter to their paper. But to be honest: Not realy. Just a bit more survivable against bigger weapons. To be honest I want a light cruiser that is anti frig specialiced. Besides can I bring the "when people are willing to pay the price" argument? (t2 frigat pilot hypocrsis) Quote: And incidentally, a faster warp speed would make them LESS useful for escorting. Uhm I thought more in the direction of industrial escort - but correct, which industrial would need an escort at all. Sorry for the sarcasm, however I was unable to resists here. ******************** Tsual - Highly ore adddicted.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.