Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 03:06:00 -
[1]
well since damage and tanking boosts start a flame war..... time to discuss giving them some Patrol(mainly Anti-submarine warfare) and Gang Support duties.
Submarine(Covert ops) Hunter: Sonar Module(can only be fit to destroyers), sends out a pulse that goes to 20km from the destroyer with 5km per level of Anti-cloaking warfare. when a cloaked ship is pinged it only becomes faintly Visable, but is lockable by the destroyer, however it cant be tracked by normal guns as of yet and needs special weapons(listed later on).
HedgeHog Launcher(Destroyer Only weapons system), Fires the new Hedgehog Proximity Torpedo, its a fuzzy aimed weapon that is dependant on the SONAR to try and find the target, however they are dumb and just shoot straight out in the direction the sonar last got a pingback(in theory a smooth Covert ops pilot could avoid them).
HedgeHog Proximity Torpedo(fired from the Hedgehog Launcher), dump missle like projectile that explodes when it comes with in 3500m of an enemy or unknown object causing minor damage but forces the cloaking systems of stealthed ships to reset. Has IFF to prevent it from going off while flying directly past a gang, corp, or alliance ship(be warned will fire if there is an enemy covert ops in the pack and the warhead sees it, not suggested for use in secure space near stargates).
Gang Support:
AAMD or Advanced Anti-Missle Defense: using a special radar module and a new Autocannon system allows the Destroyer to track and engauge incoming missles that are threat to anyone in its assigned battlegroup.
Tracking/Targeting Slaving: allows the destroyer pilot to slave out his tracking/targeting computer to another ship(using a cormorant for example, a ship that can only lock five targets can be linked with the corm and not lock onto eight targets but also gain the higher targeting resolution of the destroyer while maintaing its normal range).
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 03:22:00 -
[2]
Destroyers were ok before. Now they are really good with their range bonus. Thats realy much for their price and skill requirements.
About anti missle platform; Giving one ship more anti-missle capability is a good idea. But lets make it a med slot module for logistic cruisers, that when active, allows defenders to hit missles fired against any of gang members. And 3 launcher slots for each logistic to make them able to fire those defenders. That wuld make defenders and logistic ships a bit more usefull.
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 07:50:00 -
[3]
Logistics cruisers are awesome at keeping my shields up, I don't know about you. That and a big cargo hold for extra ammo and stuff is whay they need for there job description.
for dessy love, I would say go for a 7 4 2 slot layout thatone missle hardpoint isn't worth anything, and another trcking enhancer would be cool.
|
Ralorn Aster
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 11:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Ralorn Aster on 17/04/2006 11:17:56
Originally by: Audri Fisher I would say go for a 7 4 2 slot layout
That's what I'm thinking, too. Just one more slot and all would be fine. Right now they have less than tier 3 frigs. Unless... there will be some higher tier destroyers.
|
ragewind HQ
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 13:04:00 -
[5]
anti missile systems are a bit pointles all you end up doing is criperling the caldari ships as they are all missile based even the ferox gets used 90% of the time with heavy launchers so lets not gimp the caldari without suterbel defences against the other weapon clases.
as for the anti cloke distroyer that is cool needs some work as any covert ops will warp in no time when seeing the missile so its needs a 20K scan range that picks up multipul signals maybe 2-1 for cloked ship a 20K range on the missile and a 20K +1 warp scrambler filed this would eather need 100% cap to work or some form of fuel as hell as the torpedos
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 23:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ralorn Aster Edited by: Ralorn Aster on 17/04/2006 11:17:56
Originally by: Audri Fisher I would say go for a 7 4 2 slot layout
That's what I'm thinking, too. Just one more slot and all would be fine. Right now they have less than tier 3 frigs. Unless... there will be some higher tier destroyers.
It's not even adding a slot, just shifting them around.
anti missile systems are a bit pointles all you end up doing is criperling the caldari ships as they are all missile based even the ferox gets used 90% of the time with heavy launchers so lets not gimp the caldari without suterbel defences against the other weapon clases.
as for the anti cloke distroyer that is cool needs some work as any covert ops will warp in no time when seeing the missile so its needs a 20K scan range that picks up multipul signals maybe 2-1 for cloked ship a 20K range on the missile and a 20K +1 warp scrambler filed this would eather need 100% cap to work or some form of fuel as hell as the torpedos
They are called tracking disrupters. Every Grammer teacher you ever had cried out in horrer when they say your sentence structure, it is that hard to read.
|
Talori'i
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 01:41:00 -
[7]
I am definitely down for getting a tier 2 destroyer with a tech II variant that is is more specialized. I am also down for one that is specialized as a hunter-type ship. I love my dessies and wish they got more love.
4 8 15 16 23 42 |
JGR Guinevere
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 04:57:00 -
[8]
They have tech II destroyers... they are called interdictors and can do more than fire bubbles at people. They are just like destroyers in almost every aspect except they dont get a -25% rof and go much faster.
JGR Guinevere
Proud To Be a CHIMP @(^_^)@
|
Angelic Resolution
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 11:14:00 -
[9]
/signed, except with poster #8.
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 11:28:00 -
[10]
if u are going to supply cloaked ship finding weapons also give us stealth modules that can reduce a ships sig radius making escape and locking much harder - also an extra claoking module that perhaps uses cap but makes u total invisible with these enw cloaker tech.
Good idea destoryers need some boost how about a destoryer that gets a bonus to smartbomb cap use. Good for those level 1 drone missions (an anti drone destoryer)
|
|
Kraven Kor
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 17:09:00 -
[11]
If they just made them faster, to match the interdictors a bit (say, 80% of interdictor base speed), Destroyers would be fine. They rock at killing small ships, just that they are too cumbersome and easy to kill to really be viable in PVP.
Strength through Unity, Discipline, and Honor! |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 17:16:00 -
[12]
That's the point. They're allready ripping chunks out of the AF's role for no good reason.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Ralorn Aster
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 20:15:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ralorn Aster on 18/04/2006 20:15:04
Originally by: Maya Rkell That's the point. They're allready ripping chunks out of the AF's role for no good reason.
What's the point Maya ? Feel free to explain yourself. AF's are way tougher, smaller and even faster than destroyers. There's also more overlapping in ship roles or potentials than that.
Of course you can say 'don't make them completely take over the AF role' or something like that. That'd be constructive riticism.
|
Aecell Ominu
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 21:49:00 -
[14]
The de-cloaking technique you describe seems a bit overly complicated.
A sonar module which might (chance based, depending on which "sonar" and cloak is used) give away the location of a cloaked ship (range of this needs some thinking/testing), and then you'll have to de-cloak it like you do now: by getting close to it. This would limit the number of new procedures presented in the game, which will make it easy to understand.
This "sonar" module would have to have some disadvantages: high cap usage, long cycle time, and providing a counter module might be needed (giving the cloaked ship a possibility to project "ghost" ships?).
The range of the "sonar" will need some heavy thinking and consideration. If it's give a short range, say 20km, then all cloaked ships will just stay far away - and since you can warp to a gang member at 100km that will not be a very big problem if you want to jump in on top of someone. Give it a greater range, say 50-75km, will perhaps make it too powerful... except if you introduce fall-off, just like for other ECM modules, with decreasing chance after optimal range, etc. Exact ranges are up for discussion, of course.
Just my thoughts on this.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 23:27:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/04/2006 23:27:45 Ralorn Aster, the POINT is that they're fragile...sigh...between Destroyers on one side and Stealth Bombers on the other, AF's are pretty pointless for anything but PvE atm.
Something needs to be changed, and it's not AF's. (I'd START with Bombers, but Destroyers are on that list too.. anti-cloaking, escort, SOMETHING else).
AF's "toughness" dosn't matter when some BS single you out for attention in fleet, unless they happen to be say Amarr vs a Wolf, in which case they mucked up anyway. Speed...all you need to be able to do for fleet defence is keep up with BS. Same for agility.
I take issue with your use of the future tense, basically.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Brotorix
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 23:27:00 -
[16]
i sign to having tier-2 destroyers ... but thats about it ...
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 00:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: JGR Guinevere They have tech II destroyers... they are called interdictors and can do more than fire bubbles at people. They are just like destroyers in almost every aspect except they dont get a -25% rof and go much faster.
And they switch weapons systems, if you are Caldari, plus they all have split weapons systems except for the Minnie one.
Maya, Af have a pretty nice tank, pretty small sig radious, and can easily go toe to toe with a tech I cruiser. Destroyers, are much bigger clumsier, have a hige sig radious, have no tank to speak of, but can pack a hell of a lot more punch, yes, they can be used for the same puurpose, but they aproach it from completely opposite sides of the fence.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 00:20:00 -
[18]
but from what im told Destroyers came before the AF so its really the AF stealing the rolls of the destroyer.
|
Ralorn Aster
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 01:06:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Ralorn Aster on 19/04/2006 01:10:16
Originally by: Maya Rkell AF's "toughness" dosn't matter when some BS single you out for attention in fleet
Hm, perhaps in addition to some required ws/wcs changes, we need some webifier tweaking. I haven't lookes at the stats, but less speed reduction may greatly help AF's in the situation you depicted, so they're less likely to bear the full brunt of some BS's. This would clarify and strengthen their role/purpose, thus help to concretise the same for destoyers. Quote: I take issue with your use of the future tense, basically.
Pardon?
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 20:45:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/04/2006 23:27:45 Ralorn Aster, the POINT is that they're fragile...sigh...between Destroyers on one side and Stealth Bombers on the other, AF's are pretty pointless for anything but PvE atm.
Something needs to be changed, and it's not AF's. (I'd START with Bombers, but Destroyers are on that list too.. anti-cloaking, escort, SOMETHING else).
AF's "toughness" dosn't matter when some BS single you out for attention in fleet, unless they happen to be say Amarr vs a Wolf, in which case they mucked up anyway. Speed...all you need to be able to do for fleet defence is keep up with BS. Same for agility.
I take issue with your use of the future tense, basically.
It makes a HUGE differnece maya, Destroyers are insta popped on first villoy, AF are not. since nobody is normaly scrambling you in Battleship long range fights, the difference is simple, one live, the other dies.
|
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 21:02:00 -
[21]
Viktor Fyretracker,
Assualt frigates hit 08/04 Destroyers hit 11/04
I suggest you fire your advisors and get new ones.
Ralorn Aster,
WHAT WS/WCS changes? And tweaking webs has very little to do with the overall balance issues...and furthermore is likely uncessary. And no, more speed wouldn't help AF unless the difference was extreme.
And I take issue with your use of the future tense because it can be argued today, with some justification, that the AF is obselete.
Ralorn Aster, that is not my experience. In some big fleet battles.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Ralorn Aster
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 22:35:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ralorn Aster on 19/04/2006 22:38:10 Again, no reasoning, Maya, although I guess you could easily provide quite a lot of it. Come on, don't be so lazy, please. Let us participate in your thoughts.
Hm, I might be wrong, but aren't you heavily involved in the WCS discussion ? And it didn't seem to me you simply want to have it stay the way it is right now. Anyway, take it out of my statement if you like. It was in there merely to add something similar in principle. Similar, because it's an equally radical module - dead or alive / stopped dead or moving. To me WS and webs are quite alike.
Now, I didn't talk about more speed. It was rather less speed reduction, which of course means webbers. The reason I did that was because you stated BS's singling out AF's. Probably everyone agrees those big guns shouldn't hit small AF's all too easily. As I said, I haven't looked into the numbers, but for BS's hitting AF's I guess you have to make those AF's sitting ducks, thus webbing them. Or did you refer to Ravens and missiles, in which case speed would indeed be less of a factor?
Your point is not very easy to get. Well.. apart from you saying "you're wrong!" .. but that's no novelty
|
Kalixa Hihro
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 23:14:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Submarine(Covert ops) Hunter: Sonar Module(can only be fit to destroyers), sends out a pulse that goes to 20km from the destroyer with 5km per level of Anti-cloaking warfare. when a cloaked ship is pinged it only becomes faintly Visable
drones? they decloak a ship, just fly 20km. you are asking for an i-win button against covert ops. The whole idea of a cloaking device is to be unseen, and not reflect scanners. Take that away and what good is the cloaking device? Flying one is already dangerous enough, especially near a gate camp with a bunch of interceptors and drones flying about.
A covert ops ship can already not be much of a combat ship, and can't shoot you while it's cloaked. Scan probes are pretty nerfed since they take forever to locate anything, and an alert pilot will see them long before he's "made", and just move, breaking the scan.
Covert ops ships are already crippled enough thank you very much... They barely have much value beyond locating ships parked in space, acting as a mobile bookmark, gathering intel, and ferrying small amounts of cargo reasonably safely.
If you take any of these away, a cloaker ii is no longer worth 25m, let alone all the training it takes to use one.
If anything, they need a boost.
Do you fly one?
-Kal
|
Kalixa Hihro
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 23:15:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Talori'i I am definitely down for getting a tier 2 destroyer with a tech II variant that is is more specialized. I am also down for one that is specialized as a hunter-type ship. I love my dessies and wish they got more love.
Interdictors?
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 00:43:00 -
[25]
Interdictors are an embarassment to the Destroyer. they should have been 8 turret hardpoints. they arent real Tech2 Destroyers without more turrets.
as for the AF maybe its time for IT to bow out into a specialist role since it is tech 2 it doesnt need to be as usefull or as common. Tech 1 is the backbone of the EVE Navy and should allways remain as such across all ship classes.
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 00:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Interdictors are an embarassment to the Destroyer. they should have been 8 turret hardpoints. they arent real Tech2 Destroyers without more turrets.
as for the AF maybe its time for IT to bow out into a specialist role since it is tech 2 it doesnt need to be as usefull or as common. Tech 1 is the backbone of the EVE Navy and should allways remain as such across all ship classes.
Heh I would have simply been happy to be able to fit 7 150mm tech II's on a dessy let alone 8... still....
Here intie intie intie......
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 00:59:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Lygos on 20/04/2006 00:59:17 Destroyers are simply excellent gang support ships, especially with more than one.
-They're reasonably mobile. This would be more noticeable without instas. -They have good enough targetting range and speed for the options their capacitors offer.
Sometimes I wish they would only have 6 turrets, no RoF penalty and 1-2 launchers each, but I have to admit that I like the volley damage. The RoF penalty is more to do with the server dropping shots than damage balancing.
I'm not really sure they need any 3rd bonus though. They have a very particular support role in gang pvp and they do it rather well. They don't really need to do anything else.
Then again, the Coercer and the Catalyst suck though. Give them some drones at least. Even the Velator gets 2 smalls.
--- Set Orbit
Eunoia: The persistent suspicion that the universe is secretly conspiring to quietly improve one's life |
Strikeclone
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 03:28:00 -
[28]
I find the best way to give a destroyer love is to lock on to it with your cerb and fill it with light missiles....
seriously though the destroyer is an awesome bit of kit for lower SP players, to go from 2 guns to 7 guns for a caldari noob is incredible. they are great ships
Squadron Leader Strikeclone
XV Squadron HQ Peace through the application of superior firepower |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |